Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Preamble

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS)
[MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Conservators of Epping Forest to grant to the Secretary of State interests or rights in land for road purposes it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) in reinstating certain lands which form part of the subject matter of the said grant on completion of the purpose for which they are temporarily occupied by the Secretary of State;
(b) in laying out and providing a new cricket ground and pavilion and other conveniences for the Epping Foresters Cricket Club;
(c) in reimbursing the Conservators such proportion of the costs, charges and expenses reasonably incurred and properly paid by them in connection with the preparation, obtaining and passing of the said Act as is attributable to the provisions of that Act relating to the said grant; and
(d) in indemnifying the Conservators against actions, costs, claims and demands brought or made against or incurred by the Conservators which are caused by or arise out of the said grant and which are not attributable to the wrongful act, neglect or default of the Conservators or their contractors, agents, workmen or servants.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Retirement Age

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the inequalities in pension ages between men and women.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): Following the publication of our discussion document "A Happier Old Age", we have received a number of representations and comments on the question of pension age. These are being considered, but at present no clear consensus is emerging as to the most suitable way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the inequality in pension ages between men and women makes a mockery of the sex discrimination legislation? Will he use his considerable influence to ensure that in the Labour Party manifesto for the next general election there is a firm commitment to reduce the pensionable age of men to 60?

Mr. Orme: I think that perhaps my hon. Friend has as much influence as I in regard to the manifesto. The question of equalisation was, and is, one of the choices which we put into the document. I appreciate the pressure for a reduction in retirement age. However, before we can come to any decision the Government need to examine all possibilities exhaustively.

Mr. McCrindle: Is not the real answer to introduce flexibility into retirement ages for both men and women so that each has the opportunity to retire at any age between, for example, 60 and 70, with proportionately reduced or increased pension entitlement? Is it not a fact that the Government have no real indication of how many men would wish to retire before 65, or how many women would wish to go on working after 60? Would not the Government's best contribution be to embark upon a study so that we could have more to work on in future?

Mr. Orme: I agree with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) that equalisation is one aspect that we must study very carefully. We have done some work on this, and some of the views that are coming in to the Department, both on equalisation and flexibility, are options which the Government must consider.

Mr. George Rodgers: Was not my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) absolutely correct when he suggested that the present situation is in conflict with sex equality legislation? Does it not also apply to the different treatment of widows and widowers? Has the Department any firm plans to combat the situation?

Mr. Orme: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is one of the aspects that the Equal Opportunities Commission dealt with in regard to equalisation. But my hon. Friend will understand that other organisations—not least the TUC—are much opposed to the proposal as it is at present.

Mrs. Chalker: Will the Minister accept how sorry we are not to see the Secretary of State in his place today? We all wish him a speedy recovery. What further discussions have the Government had on the EEC directive on equalisation of pension ages, and how do current Government plans fit in with the implementation dates that are set in that directive?

Mr. Orme: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments in regard to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We all hope to see him back very soon. As to the EEC directive, as the hon. Lady knows, there is a period of six years for the phasing in of certain aspects of this document. Obviously during that period we shall have to take into account the question of retirement age.

Nurses (Pay)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the hourly rate for a night nurse on a hospital ward and her pay for one week of night duty.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr Ronald Moyle): Nurses' hourly rates are enhanced by one-quarter for night duty and one-half for work done on Sundays and public holidays. Night duty on a general

ward by a registered nurse as a staff nurse, at the maximum of the staff nurse scale, attracts hourly rates of £2·03 Monday to Saturday, and £2·43 Sunday and public holidays. Pay at these rates for one week of night duty, 40 hours in four shifts which includes a Sunday or public holiday, would total £85·20.

Mr. Pavitt: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that the staff nurse wages he has mentioned are deplorable? Does not this show that the nurses are not just a special case but an exceptional case, in which unsocial hours and a number of other things should be taken into consideration?
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be at the Cabinet meeting on Thursday, will my right hon. Friend the Minister of State be there? If so, will he press the nurses' case? Time is of the essence. The year that has been lost should now be made up and the phasing of any settlement should start in April and August of this year and not April and August of next year.

Mr. Moyle: My hon. Friend should have noticed that there is a question on the Order Paper about nurses' pay in general. I think that I ought to reserve my answer until them. However, I can confirm that my right hon. Friend will be at the Cabinet meeting on Thursday in order to deal with any matters affecting my Department.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: There is a matter which does arise out of that. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that of all the many claimes for special consideration that there have been in recent weeks, the one that commands a vast amount of public support and sympathy is that of the nurses? Is he aware that figures that he has just given show that many hospital porters and some kitchen staff who are on strike are receiving more money than nurses who are not on strike and who have said that they never will strike? How can he possibly justify that?

Mr. Moyle: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for further public expenditure for the NHS. I draw his attention to the fact that there is a later question on the Order Paper dealing with nurses' pay as opposed to enhancements for special work. I shall deal with the question of the nurses' pay claim then.

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Service when he expects to announce the Government decision on the 1978 pay award to nurses.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement regarding nurses' pay.

Mr. Moyle: Yesterday, we saw representatives of the management and staff sides of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council, when my right hon. Friend informed them of the Government's decisions on nurses' pay. For the April 1979 settlement, the proposal is for an increase of 9 per cent. on the pay bill. In addition, we have proposed a comparability study, with results to be implemented in two equal stages, in August 1979 and April 1980, with an advance payment of £1 a week from April 1979 for all staff working 35 hours a week or more, to be offset against the first stage comparability payments.
We had an exploratory discussion and agreed to meet again on Friday with a view to reaching an agreement with the Whitley Council.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the nurses are showing commendable restraint, unlike some other health workers, in refusing to strike? Will the Government recognise that by publicly appreciating it? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a basis for a successful settlement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]—exists in negotiating with the nurses firm guarantees on pay in return for a no-strike agreement? If he does so agree, will he use that process of negotiation?

Mr. Moyle: I am grateful for the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman has given me to refer to the nurses' vote to oppose strike action. I much appreciate that decision. It is upon the ability of the nurses to carry out their role that the maintenance of the Health Service depends in times of trouble. We are not asking for a no-strike guarantee from the nurses. We are offering a guarantee of their position in relationship to society from the present forward. The comparability study may be taken up by the Standing Commission on Public Service Pay for suceeding years as well as the present.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nurses, like other low-paid workers in the National Health Service, can hardly be accused of fanning the flames of inflation? However, it appears that some the adjustments that may be made for them will not be as good as adjustments that have been made for those in the industrial sector. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the role of the nurses in our hospitals—a role that touches almost every family in the land—deserves generous treatment? Will he ensure that on Friday there is an improvement in the offer in the immediate term and that that may be added to later when the other part of the agreement comes into force?

Mr. Moyle: I cannot make any promises about the immediate offer. I agree that the nurses deserve generous treatment. I understand that they claim that they have fallen behind other groups over the past two or three years. If they accept the main part of the Government's offer, their problems will be substantially solved. Contrary to what happened in 1970 and 1975, they will be protected from falling back again.

Mr. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to guarantee to the nurses that their determination not to strike, which has won terrific public respect, will receive greater cash recognition than the claims made by other groups who have used the strike weapon? Has not the time come for him to disprove the widespread belief that militancy pays?

Mr. Moyle: We have offered the nurses a large part of what they are asking for. Their case is that they have fallen behind. If they accept the comparability study, their position will be restored. That will apply for the current year and their position in society will be held in relationship with that of other groups from this year forward.

Mr. Crawshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of those who support incomes policy, such as myself, do so on the understanding that it is a basic concept that the lower paid and those in special categories should receive priority when discussions are taking place? Apart from those in the police force and the Armed Forces, do not the nurses come into the special category?


Does he accept that if he made concessions at this stage, and not for next year or the year after, the public would believe not that we were breaking the incomes policy but that we were merely giving the nurses that to which they are entitled?

Mr. Moyle: I should stress that the Government's incomes policy makes provision for special categories and for the lower-paid. We firmly believe that the nurses fall within the special category. That is why we have made this offer to them. I believe that this will lead substantially to what they want.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has studiously avoided answering the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the comparability of the offers made to the nurses and to the ancillary workers? Will not his commendation of the nurses' refusal to strike sound very hollow when it is apparent that they have been given exactly the same offer in spite of their undertaking not to strike that has been given to unions, some of which have been doing their damnedest to smash up the Health Service?

Mr. Moyle: If the right hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to study the offer, he will see that we are proceeding to the nurses' comparability study as quickly as is humanly possible. After all, we are ensuring that the first phase of the staging payments will come into operation after a mere three or four months' work by the standing commission. In practice, that is about as fast as it can work.

Termination of Pregnancy (Day Care Facilities)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress he has made with setting up day care clinics for early termination of pregnancy.

Mr. Moyle: In planning guidelines issued in March last year, health authorities were asked to review National Health Service provision for women seeking termination of pregnancy, and in particular to develop day care facilities. This was followed up at the end of the

year with a request to each regional health authority for details of existing day care abortion facilities and plans to establish new facilities over the next three years. When this information is complete, my Department will consider what further discussions with health authorities would be appropriate. The position regarding day care abortion treatment in private nursing homes was set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) on 29 January.

Mrs. Short: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that full reply. Is he aware that the latest statistics indicate that 50 per cent. of women receiving legal abortions under the Act still have to find the resources and the money to go into the private sector? Is he aware that in the West Midlands we still have the lowest figure of terminations carried out on the NHS, and that this is a matter of very great concern throughout the region? Will he please give special attention to this area?

Mr. Moyle: I can confirm that I shall give special attention to the West Midlands area. Indeed, my officials have been in touch with the regional health authority with a view to taking action in the exercise that I described. I regret that I have to confirm that about 50 per cent. of abortions are at present taking place outside the NHS. As the desire for more abortions on the NHS was the one issue which united the Standing Committee that considered the Bill of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) about two years ago, it is obviously an issue upon which the House is united and we shall do our best to meet it.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what steps he has taken to point out to women the serious psychological and physical results of an abortion wherever, or by whatever method, it may be undertaken?

Mr. Moyle: That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the doctor who is advising the woman concerned.

Birmingham Area Health Authority

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends next to meet the chairman of Birmingham area health authority.

Mr. Moyle: I expect to see him on Thursday during my visit to South-East Staffordshire and North Birmingham. May I say that that answer was written before my right hon. Friend went into hospital, and it is not to be taken as gospel truth.

Mr. MacKay: When the Minister meets Mr. John Bettinson, will he discuss with him ways of reducing the five-year waiting list for non-emergency, but nevertheless essential, operations in the East Birmingham hospital? Is he satisfied that Birmingham, as the second largest city in the country, with a large and increasing catchment area, is getting its fair share of funds allocated by his Department for the NHS?

Mr. Moyle: Allocations to the Birmingham area health authority take place on the Resource Allocation Working Party formula, which is the same for the whole of the country. In addition to the provision which I indicated in my answer to the hon. Gentleman on 30 January was being instituted in Birmingham, I am pleased to be able to tell him that detailed planning will shortly commence for the development of the so-called "carcase block" at Queen Elizabeth hospital to provide facilities for renal dialysis, transplants, radiotherapy and cardiac surgery. Of course, the proposal will be subject to approval in the context of the strategic plans of the health authorities concerned.

Dr. Vaughan: Does the Minister really support the proposals to encourage Dutch nurses to come to this country to fill vacancies in the West Midlands and Birmingham area when the shortage of nurses is largely due to the cut-back in training that was instituted by the Government and the inflexible methods of part-time nursing?

Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. In fact, in the first nine months of this year the recruitment for nurse training was substantially in excess of the numbers recruited for nurse training in the equivalent nine months of the preceding year. Therefore, I do not think that the question arises.

Retirement Pensions

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be

the administrative cost of making a cash payment to all pensioners to cover the annual amount by which the November 1978 pension increase falls short of the increase in average earnings.

Mr. Orme: The administrative cost of making a single payment of the same amount to all pensioners would be about £3 million, but such a payment could not be varied to cover each individual case. The Government think it more appropriate to take the shortfall into account, together with the general economic prospects, when the time comes to decide the new rates of benefit which will take effect from next November.

Mr. Ovenden: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that answer? Does he not accept that some action should be taken to recompense pensioners for the lower than justified pension increase that they received in November due to the miscalculations of his Department? Does he accept that the higher than expected increase in earnings has boosted the national insurance funds and that some way ought to be found to return this money to national insurance beneficiaries?

Mr. Orme: I take my hon. Friend's point. As I have already said, the Government will take this into account when we look at the next uprating. I should like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that because earnings were higher than prices—by 3·3 per cent. last year—pensioners received an increase in real terms.

Mr. Marten: Would it not save a certain amount of Government expenditure if pension increases were made at the same time as the Budget so that the new pension rate could equate almost exactly with the new tax allowances in the Budget? Would not that save a lot of work for the tax inspector and the collector of taxes?

Mr. Orme: That sounds an attractive idea, but the administrative problems would be immense. We have now moved to a November uprating. We need about five to six months' forecast because of the tremendous amount of work that has to be done in making adjustments to the pensions. We are dealing with over 9 million pensioners, and it is a very big task indeed.

Mr. Madden: Bearing in mind the large heating bills that many pensioners are facing this winter and, indeed, the increase in television licence fees, would not my right hon. Friend accept that pensioners are owed about £20 and that a lump sum payment of that order would be extremely useful to many pensioners in meeting these bills?

Mr. Orme: I accept what my hon. Friend says. But if we were to make a lump sum payment, some people would get more than they were entitled to and some would get less. It would be a very difficult operation. The safest way to deal with this would be for the Government to take into account in the uprating. I emphasise that the pensioners have not lost this year. In fact, they have gained quite substantially.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does not everything that the right hon. Gentleman said indicate that he is conceding that once again, for the second time in three years, the Government have missed the target that they set themselves in the 1975 Act? Was the Secretary of State correctly reported when, in "Pensioners' Voice", he was reported as saying that there was a statutory requirement to take these things into account but no statutory requirement to get it right? Does not that strike the right hon. Gentleman as a rather cynical approach to this statutory obligation?

Mr. Orme: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the forecast which my right hon. Friend made last summer is the best that is available. There is no statutory obligation, as a recent court case proved, to carry that out. Obviously a Government would want to take this into account. The right hon. Gentleman reminded me about the 1975 Act. In that Act, this Government put the uprating of pensions in line with either earnings or prices. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman's party will stick to that if, unfortunately, it came into office.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he can now announce arrangements for retirement pensions to be paid on request direct into pensioners' bank accounts.

Mr. Orme: The findings of a joint working party of representatives of the

banks and my Department are being studied and I will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Mr. Jessel: As such an arrangement would save 40 per cent. of retirement pensioners with bank accounts from going out to collect their pensions in bad weather, and as there would be a considerable saving to public funds, why do not the Government get on with it? It is now 18 months since I raised the matter with the Minister. What is the reason for the delay?

Mr. Orme: I am expecting a report by the end of the month. There is a great deal of work to be done. As I have said, we are dealing with nearly 9 million pensioners. I am much in favour of the principle, and the introduction of such an arrangement would cover child benefit as well as retirement pensions. There are certain snags and administrative problems to be overcome, but I hope to make some progress in the near future.

Geriatric Care

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has to allocate a higher proportion of available resources to geriatric care, whether provided at home or in hospitals or through other community provision.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): In the planning guidelines issued to health and local authorities, I have asked them to give high priority to the improvement of geriatric and other services for the elderly, including domiciliary and residential provision. As indicated in the recently published public expenditure White Paper, further developments in services for the elderly will continue to be a high priority in the use of any additional funds which become available to the NHS.

Mr. Latham: As, thank God, our people are living longer and are healthier, is it not plain that there will be a tremendous strain on resources over the next 20 years? Have the Government undertaken any long-term planning—not the public expenditure White Paper projections but long-term planning—on the future level of resources over that period merely to maintain existing standards, let alone increase them?

Mr. Morris: The elderly population has increased, is increasing and will continue to increase. My Department's overall planning norm of 10 geriatric beds per 1,000 persons aged 65 years or over is being reviewed in the light of changes in demography and patterns of service. We are treating the subject extremely seriously. We are not merely sloganising about community care for the elderly. On the contrary, we put our money where our principles lie. For example, the amount of National Health Service resources set aside for the joint financing scheme increased from £8 million in 1976–77 to £21 million in 1977–78 and £34·5 million this year.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very often when a person goes into a geriatric ward there is the feeling "Abandon hope all ye who enter here"? Is he aware of the wonderful work that is being done in geriatric re-habilitation? Will he please allocate resources to allow the elderly who go into geriatric wards to be given the opportunity to get out of them? Will he please give that top priority?

Mr. Morris: There are many competing priorities. I agree that geriatric re-habitation is extremely important. I shall take carefully into account all that my hon. Friend has said. I know that he agrees that community care for the elderly is also extremely important.

Mrs. Chalker: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps now to stimulate an increased amount of attention by voluntary bodies to help those families who care for their own elderly in the community? Will he persuade local authorities to organise relief care to a greater extent than is now possible for those families that spend so much of their time looking after their elderly but who cannot do so for 52 weeks a year?

Mr. Morris: I keep closely in touch with voluntary organisations. I am especially concerned to do so with a view to improving care for the elderly. The Government's introduction of the invalid care allowance has done much to help those who are looking after elderly and disabled relatives. I shall take very much into account the point that the hon Lady makes about local authorities.

Young Persons (Subsequent Offences)

Mr. Whitney: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the percentage of cases where those made subject to a care order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 subsequently commit offences which in the case of an adult would be punishable by imprisonment.

Mr. Moyle: I regret this information is not available.

Mr. Whitney: Does not the Minister agree that his answer shows the urgent need for a great deal more information on this subject to be made available to the House and to the public? Does he not also agree that such information as we do possess suggests strongly that there is an urgent need, in the interests of the public, society and young people themselves, for the Government to turn their backs on the outdated, trendy, psychological theories of the 1960s and seek an amendment of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 on the lines frequently proposed on this side of the House?

Mr. Moyle: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman feels that there is an urgent need for information, since he is therefore proposing substantial legislative action on the basis of not having information. I would have thought that a very foolish action. I do not agree that the 1969 Act is outdated. In so far as we have statistics relating to its performance, it seems to have had more effect on the level of juvenile crime than the system which preceded it.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend resist the introduction of the ill-founded, punitive measures frequently proposed by the Conservatives? Does he recognise that many of the ill-founded criticisms of the 1969 Act have their origin in the fact that successive Governments of both parties have failed to provide the resources so that the spirit and the intention of that Act can be properly implemented? Will he give an assurance that sufficient resources will be provided, particularly to enable more care to be taken of children within the community?

Mr. Moyle: I agree that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) in his Private Member's


Bill should be resisted. In fact, I did so the other Friday with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and others. On the question of resources, we are taking fairly substantial action to ensure that there is more secure accommodation. By 1980, we should have approximately 350 places. We are also retaining borstal for girls and boys aged 15 and over and detention centres for boys aged 14 or over. The Criminal Law Act 1977, by raising levels of fines which can be imposed on juveniles and providing means of enforcing payments, in some cases through parents, has also helped. Special requirements can be inserted into supervision orders, and sanctions can be imposed if they are not observed. The Department has increased the number of places available for junior attendance sentences—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the length of answers is getting most unfair.

Mr. Hodgson: Will the Minister bear in mind that the victims of these offences also have their rights? In the light of his admission that there is a grave shortage of secure accommodation, does he not think that it is an error of judgment for the Government to press on with the implementation of the transitional provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act at this time?

Mr. Moyle: We are consulting local authorities on that point. We will reach our conclusion as a result of those consultations.

National Health Service (Industrial Relations)

Mr. Michael Spicer: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the current state of industrial relations in the National Health Service.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the current state of industrial relations in the National Health Service.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the latest state of industrial relations in the National Health Service.

Mr. Moyle: I assume that these questions relate to the current industrial action by ancillary workers and ambulance men in the National Health Service. Balloting is still taking place by members of the unions concerned but the outcome should be known before the end of this week. I greatly regret the fact that Health Service workers feel it necessary to take industrial action which inevitably threatens the welfare of the patients. Services in all regions have been affected, some more seriously than others. I wish to pay tribute to the efforts and devotion of the vast majority of staff—managers, doctors, nurses and others—who have succeeded in maintaining services to patients and the community at large in the face of very great difficulties.

Mr. Spicer: Does the Minister accept that industrial relations within the Health Service reached a new low yesterday when members of NUPE announced that they would take control of the number of blood donors who supply blood to London hospitals? Will not even this Government take a lead on this matter?

Mr. Moyle: This matter was settled locally. The unions and management have agreed to meet all emergency requirements. They have also agreed machinery for continuous monitoring of the effect. I am sure that if these matters are left to local solutions, local solutions will be achieved.

Mr. Roberts: In view of the nurses' humane decision not to strike, does the Minister think that it is fair to make them much the same offer as he has made to the ancillary workers who have done their best to disrupt the Service?

Mr. Moyle: In the interests of brevity, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I have already given on this subject.

Mr. Adley: In view of the role of the Government as employer within the Health Service, does not the Minister think that there is a direct conflict of interest in the right hon. Gentleman being Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security and also a sponsored member of NUPE? Would there not have been an uproar in this House if the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) had sought to remain as Secretary of State for Trade while becoming chairman


of a merchant bank? Should not the Minister make up his mind which job he wants and get rid of one of them?

Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Ministers are not employers in the National Health Service. Health authorities are employers in the National Health Service. On the question of sponsorship, my connections with the National Union of Public Employees and my membership of the Government put me in a unique position to understand both sides of this dispute. I would not wish to change it.

Mr. John Ellis: Does not the Minister agree that industrial relations in the National Health Service and in the public sector generally would be improved if we could revert to the old system whereby the level of wage settlements was decided in any one year, with this sector following on behind. That system was broken by Selwyn Lloyd. It would do a lot to help the nurses and all public service workers if we returned to that principle, backdated if necessary.

Mr. Moyle: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a provision in the agreement recently reached between the Government and the Trades Union Congress. There is much to be said for it.

Mr. Litterick: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that present negotiations in the Health Service with nurses and other employees are difficult and delicately poised? Will he have a word with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and advise him that the statement that he made yesterday expressing bleeding-hearted sympathy for the unfortunate speculators in gilt-edged securities, who recently made a killing, is both offensive and damaging to these negotiations?

Mr. Moyle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will note the remarks made by my hon. Friend.

Dr. Vaughan: Does the Minister realise that his answer over the blocking of blood supplies was completely unsatisfactory? This kind of industrial action is uncivilised and inhuman. Will he say what action he proposes to take to ensure that it does not occur again?

Mr. Moyle: We shall monitor all these arrangements and we shall make sure that

the inadequate service to the public caused by such actions is drawn to the attention of those concerned. The experience throughout the industrial action has been that, when that is done, there is a speedy restoration of an essential service.

Motability

Mrs. Chalker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will report on the progress of the Motability scheme.

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will report on the progress of the Motability scheme.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Motability was established as an independent and voluntary organisation, but with Government support, a little over a year ago. Since then it has made considerable progress, particularly with the introduction of its scheme for the leasing of cars on favourable terms to disabled people with the mobility allowance. Motability also hopes, before long, to introduce a hire-purchase scheme that will be of further help to beneficiaries of the allowance.

Mrs. Chalker: Will the Minister take note of the RSVP scheme and report to the House as soon as he can on the question of an alternative vehicle? Will he, further, let the House know what the Government intend to do about the removal of vehicle excise duty and the consequent need for an uprating of the mobility allowance to compensate?

Mr. Morris: "RSVP" stands for replacement specialised vehicle project. I am aware of the campaign which the organisation has recently launched, and I shall be keeping in close touch with it.
The problem about any quest for a single replacement specialised vehicle is the assumption that disabled people are standard people. There is no identikit disabled person. It may be that we need to encourage a great many projects in this field. I take fully into account the point made about the uprating of the mobility allowance. We shall have in mind all that the hon. Lady has said.

Mr. Newton: Does the Minister agree that there really is continuing very great anxiety about whether the mobility allowance in conjunction with the Motability


scheme will allow people who had Invacars to replace those vehicles at all? Has he given any thought to the problem of the double value added tax charge, on the vehicle and the lease, which is one of the points of concern, and has he made any representations to the Chancellor about this?

Mr. Morris: The point about VAT is very much a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The point that the hon. Gentleman has made will be noted.
I must point out that the mobility allowance has represented a tremendous advance for disabled people. Even at the current level of the allowance, by next year we shall have put about £75 million a year in the hands of beneficiaries to spend with Motability if they so wish. We shall try to build on our achievements as soon as we can.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister study the Salamander car for the disabled and their wheelchairs? It will be coming on the roads this spring. Is he aware that six of these cars per week, specially designed by Manchester polytechnic and financed by Salford council, will be provided for local residents? However, as there are 25,000 eligible disabled people throughout the country, will the Government interest themselves in the vital question of providing mobility for the disabled?

Mr. Morris: In Britain there are some 3½ million people who are disabled in one form or another. I am taking a very keen interest in this prototype. My officials have given direct advice to the development team. In addition, the project has benefited from public funds. I shall be continuing to take the closest possible interest in developments.

Drugs (Evaluation)

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for evaluating old and new drugs.

Mr. Moyle: I shall maintain and, subject to the availability of resources, seek to develop the existing systems for evaluating new and old drugs, in which the expert advisory committees set up under section 4 of the Medicines Act play an invaluable part.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some people in the drug industry want to adopt a double standard for testing drugs for those people with rare diseases? Will he, therefore, categorically reject double standards of drug testing for people with rare diseases and promise that the Government will intervene if the drug industry threatens to withdraw from providing special drugs for the treatment of rare diseases?

Mr. Moyle: I am sure that I am against double standards on any occasion. I shall certainly draw the attention of the Medicines Commission and the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, and their associated committees, to the point that my hon. Friend makes.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will be grateful to him for seeking to get a code of practice on post-product licensed clinical trials in general practice, where many drug companies have been seeking to promote their drugs through trials rather than actually doing scientific work to evaluate them? What will he do in the interim, as some companies are still using bogus trials, and deluding general practitioners into participating in them, when such trials have no scientific merit and are simply designed to promote the drug?

Mr. Moyle: I hope that the interim will not be sufficiently long to require major action, because the Committee on the Safety of Medicines is currently reviewing the situation and is hoping to report this summer, when we shall be in a position to take action.

LUXEMBOURG

Mr. Dykes: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to pay an official visit to Luxembourg.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to visit Luxembourg.

Mr. Dykes: Is the Prime Minister aware that I really intend to ask a question about the EEC and not about a subject beginning with "D"?
Now that the differences between Germany and France, and this country, on agricultural policy payments appear to


be being resolved and the European monetary system looks set fair to start fairly soon, will the Prime Minister now reconsider the Government's decision not to join the EMS, and join forthwith?

The Prime Minister: I hope that differences between France and Germany on this issue can be resolved, so that the decision that was taken at the last European Council can be implemented. But I hope that no attempt will be made to resolve those difficulties in a way which would worsen Britain's position in relation to agricultural product prices. We must insist, for our part, that agricultural prices should not be increased to the point where surpluses continue to mount or, indeed, are maintained.

Mr. David Steel: Has the Prime Minister noted that the Prime Minister of Luxembourg intends to hold a general election in his country on the same day as the direct elections to the European Assembly? Without putting any thoughts into the right hon. Gentleman's mind, may I ask whether that does not remind him that we have yet to discuss in this House the regulations for the conduct of those elections? In view of the debacle of the referendum, is it not wise that we should do so earlier rather than later?

The Prime Minister: I understand that some indication of when we shall be discussing these matters may be given, perhaps in the Business Statement that will come on Thursday.
As regards M. Thorn's other proposals, I am quite sure that I shall be as successful as M. Thorn has been in these matters in previous years, and I expect to be here as long as he has been where he is.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that the British people are crying out for a leader—[Interruption.]—who, unlike the Leader of the Opposition with her European party, will stand up against the wiles and the wishes of the Common Market? Is he aware that it is now costing every man, woman and child in Britain £20 per year to be a member of this very expensive club? He would do well in an election campaign to campaign against the Common Market, especially against the recent decision to introduce the tachograph in Britain, which will mean raising prices for the people of this

country and everyone else who has to buy things from the Common Market.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has derived a considerable amount of his information about the cost of the Common Market from figures that I have myself given. He need be in no doubt that we shall continue to press this matter. However, that is a far different thing, in view of the decision of this country, from saying that we intend to leave the Common Market. The Government have no proposals to do that. Indeed, the best way in which we can ensure that there is a prosperous and free Europe is to work with the other countries in Europe in order to ensure that.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Michael Spicer: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 March.

The Prime Minister: This morning I met the Japanese import promotion mission. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Spicer: Later on in the day, when the Prime Minister comes round to thinking about the votes that took place in Scotland and Wales in the referendum last week, will he bear in mind that the people of the country are now anxiously awaiting the announcement of the date on which the repeal orders to the Scotland and Wales Acts will be introduced? Will he assure the House that there will be no unnecessary delays?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I am aware that there is a responsibility laid upon the Government and upon the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales to bring forward these orders. They will, of course, do so.

Mr. George Rodgers: Will my right hon. Friend find the opportunity today to convey appreciation to the Soviet Union for its restraint and responsibility during the conflict between China and Vietnam?

The Prime Minister: I have noted that in view of the Soviet Union's support of Vietnam Mr. Brezhnev's statements on this matter have been restrained. I am


very glad—and I am sure that the whole House is glad—that the Soviet Union has been restrained on this matter. I have no doubt that this will lead China more easily to withdraw from Vietnam, and, I hope, Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I press the Prime Minister a little further on his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer)? Since the Prime Minister accepts that the Government have a duty under the Scotland and Wales Acts to lay draft orders, will he say whether those will be laid and the House given the time to debate them and to reach a decision upon them before the end of the month?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give an answer at present—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because the Government have not yet considered the dates for discussion of these matters. But when we have done so of course the right hon. Lady will be informed.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister accepts that he must lay the draft orders and that there is a strict duty upon him to do so. Will he go ahead with that fairly quickly and then we can properly raise with the Lord President the matter of when it should be debated?

The Prime Minister: I understand that. There have been some suggestions that the Government might seek not to lay the orders, but, of course, that is not true. The Government will lay them. How far and when we should discuss these matters is a matter for further consideration by the Government. I understand that the Opposition also wish to consider the matter further. I think that we both need some time.
I suggest to the House seriously that, although the 40 per cent. requirement that Parliament inserted was not achieved, the House in its consideration of these matters should take care not to offend the 1¼ million people—a majority—who voted in favour.
There is a serious constitutional issue if we want to keep both Scotland and the United Kingdom united. That is why I think that we should all have a little time for reflection.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend report to the House when he expects the institutional arrangements envisaged in the agreement between the Government and the trade unions to come into being?

The Prime Minister: I am making progress on the proposals for a standing commission on the subject of comparability between the various groupings in the community, especially in the public service, but not only in the public service. I am making progress with Ministers and in consultation with the TUC and the CBI. In spite of the slight derision from some Opposition Members, I hope that we shall be able to make rapid progress in setting up such an institution.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the fact that a Scottish Assembly was the Goverment's manifesto commitment in 1974 and that there was a clear "Yes" majority in the referendum on 1 March, will the Prime Minister say whether he will call upon his own supporters in the Government to back their own policy?

The Prime Minister: The Government have a very good record in the sense that we have, despite great difficulties in the House, pursued this matter for over two years. We have certainly fulfilled the commitments that we gave to the people of Scotland. But I am not to be tempted any further today on what will happen after a period of reflection.

TUC AND CBI

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister when last he met the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.

The Prime Minister: I meet representatives of the TUC and CBI from time to time at the National Economic Development Council and on other occasions. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree, notwithstanding the recent industrial disputes which involved only 1 per cent. of the entire industrial working force, that the working people, via their trade unions, have made a massive contribution to the fight against inflation? Does he agree that this is still the primary


threat to the country on which the Government must concentrate? Will the Prime Minister therefore urge the CBI to take a lesson from the trade union movement and the working people and to make its contribution through prices to the fight against inflation?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that the attitude taken by organised workers in the country in relation to their pay and earnings in the last three years has assisted us materially in reducing inflation from heights which were undermining the fabric of many institutions to the present level. That is why the Government have taken a firm line, so far as they can in a democratic society, on the question of pay for the present year.
On the attitude that is taken by the employers, I must tell my hon. Friend that the nationalised industries have as good a record as anybody in holding prices. Their price increases have been below those of a number of firms in private industry. They have made an important contribution in that way.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, before he next meets the CBI or the TUC, give instructions that no further public funds are to be expended on providing facilities for the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies?

The Prime Minister: I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to look into that matter. I should have thought that at the moment it would automatically follow that not much money would be spent on either of those projects.

Mr. Loyden: When my right hon. Friend next meets the CBI and the TUC will he discuss with them the rationalisation of United Kingdom-based industries which appear to be cutting off their excess capacity in areas of high unemployment such as the North-West and in particular Merseyside? Is he aware that on a number of occasions recently United Kingdom-based firms have rationalised in areas of high unemployment and that industries are closing down at an unacceptable rate?

The Prime Minister: Certainly, companies are closing down or making workers redundant when there is no demand, when they are not proving to be competitive or are not able to supply the goods that other countries require. That is happening. Therefore, the task of Government is twofold, as I see it. First, we must try to ease that transition by means of protecting employment for a period of time and by ensuring that there are good redundancy payments. Secondly, we must ensure that new technologies and new jobs are introduced. That is why the Government have put so much money behind the National Enterprise Board, the new microprocessing work and in other directions.

Mr. Adley: Why is it considered to be right and proper for the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) to give up his Government position when he accepts a job in the City and yet not right, necessary or relevant for the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), for example, to give up his sponsorship of NUPE while retaining his job in the Government? Is there not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what that has to do with the TUC or the CBI.

Mr. Adley: It is strictly relevant to the TUC—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not related to the question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: When the Prime Minister meets his friends at the TUC council, will he tell them on behalf of all hon. Members that stopping blood donors from giving blood and preventing patients from receiving it is repugnant to all civilised people in the country?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security has answered questions on this matter this afternoon and I prefer to leave that to him. It is not good practice or principle for the Prime Minister to intervene and express opinions on such matters where a Minister has already given an answer.

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully ask that you reconsider your ruling? I was raising a question relating to hon. Members who


are sponsored by TUC-affiliated unions or companies and other organisations that may be members of the CBI. I understand that the Prime Minister may not want to answer the question, but it was perfectly proper and in order.

Mr. Speaker: It was not, in my judgment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Michael Foot): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the Supply day on Thursday.
The subject for debate chosen by the Opposition will be the working of the Employment Protection Acts, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Orders of the Day — INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Independent Broadcasting Authority to incur expenditure in equipping itself to transmit television broadcasts on the fourth channel. The Bill will enable the Authority to apply any of the current surpluses on its appropriate reserves up to a total of £10 million. It will also enable the Authority to borrow from the Government, if it should need to do so, up to a total of £18 million.
In the White Paper on broadcasting the Government indicated their agreement with the Annan committee that in order to keep the cost to a minimum and to avoid unnecessary delay the IBA should be responsible for engineering the fourth channel and for transmitting the fourth channel service. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with this. As envisaged in the White Paper, we began immediate discussions with the IBA about the engineering work for the fourth channel. The Authority indicated that whilst it wished to proceed urgently it did not consider that it had adequate statutory powers to do so under the existing legislation. I, of course, have accepted this view and hence have introduced this Bill to make the necessary statutory provision.
I should like to make it clear at once that the purpose of this Bill—to enable the Authority to incur expenditure on engineering the fourth channel—is quite independent of the service ultimately to be transmitted over it. Whatever authority eventually provides and supervises the television service on the fourth channel, the preliminary engineering work needs to be done and to be started quickly.
The White Paper on broadcasting stated the Government's intention to establish an Open Broadcasting Authority to provide the service on the fourth channel. The establishment of that Authority will be dealt with in major

broadcasting legislation which will be introduced later. This Bill does not anticipate that legislation, and, indeed, if any other arrangements should be made for the provision of the service, the engineering work which flows from this Bill will be equally appropriate.
I know that many hon. Members have a special interest in what will happen in Wales. The Government have indicated their intention to introduce the fourth channel in Wales, giving priority to a service in the Welsh language, in the autumn of 1982. To achieve this it is essential that work on engineering the service should start as soon as possible. The IBA has already indicated that it will give priority to engineering the fourth channel in Wales.
In the short term, however, we intend that there should be an increase in Welsh language programmes. The television licence fee increases that I announced last November took account of the cost of additional BBC Welsh language programmes, and the BBC has indicated its intention to provide these additional programmes by next autumn. HTV Wales, the independent television programme contractor, has also announced its intention to increase the amount of its Welsh language children's programmes. Thus, both the BBC and independent television are going to contribute to more programmes in the Welsh language in the Welsh language in the near future.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the engineering of the transmitters take until 1982, or will it be completed earlier?

Mr. Rees: It will be finished by the autumn of 1982. It is a long job. That is why I thought that we should have the Bill. Irrespective of the Welsh problem, and whatever is decided ultimately, there is no disagreement between us that we want the fourth channel. Therefore, it is not jumping the gun on what the formal programme will be.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Some of us are anxious about this matter. Will the Minister dispel our fears? Those of us who are anxious that the ITV should not get the fourth channel will feel that by engineering the service it will establish a position from which it will be difficult to shift it. Will the Minister give us an assurance on that point?

Mr. Rees: I can give an assurance. What we said in the White Paper, following the Annan report, which was eminently sensible, was that the IBA had the know-how to do the engineering. It makes good sense for it to do the work. It would not have been wise for the OBA to do that.
It was our idea, when the Bill came forward, that the IBA should also do the transmission work. I am sure that that is right. I am not pre-empting the decision. The fact that the IBA is doing this agrees with our original intention in the White Paper.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Secretary of State in a position to say how many extra hours will be given to Welsh programmes on BBC and ITV in the next three years?

Mr. Rees: I am speaking out of the top of my head. It is about two hours a day. May I check on that? My hon. Friend will mention it when he makes his winding-up speech.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I apologise for interrupting, but these points are important. The Minister mentioned that further important legislation would be introduced. Will he say when that important legislation, establishing the OBA, is likely to be introduced? What will be the effect if, by any chance, it is not introduced?

Mr. Rees: The straight answer to that is that this is a long Bill. We know the political situation in the House. There is no point in my disguising that. Very shortly, in any event, I must do something about the charter of the BBC. That is a separate issue. We may discuss wider issues on that occasion. The Government's view is clear. Just as I said quite properly to the Opposition that I am not trying to pre-empt the situation, in no way am I weakening the resolve of the Government on the matter of the OBA, which I believe is the right way forward. However, the timing of the Bill these days is not just a matter of having a Bill ready. There are other considerations to take into account.

Mr. George Reid: Does the Home Secretary agree that there are many remote parts of Scotland where people can receive

only one channel? I refer to communities of 500 people. Surely, amid all this engineering work, priority should be given to engineering decent services for those people as well.

Mr. Rees: I am sympathetic to that aspect both in Scotland and other places. This will be engineering for the fourth channel. I see the point that if money is to be spent on this, the BBC and the IBA should consider the existing channels. I shall ask my hon. Friend to make inquiries on that point. I do not think that the two matters are linked. However, I take the point. I shall see what information we can give at the end of the debate.
May I say one word more on the subject of the Welsh language? It is clear—I speak as an expatriate Welshman—that just as there are people who want he Welsh language channel—I agree with that, for the culture of Wales—there are equally large numbers of people in South Wales and in South-East Wales in particular who do not want Welsh language channels. Indeed, this proposal will help in that respect.
I remind the House that in the longer term our proposals envisage a Welsh Language Television Council, which will consist of representatives of BBC Wales, the Welsh independent television contractor, the IBA and the OBA. Since, under our proposals, the OBA will be responsible for the fourth channel as a whole, we propose that one member of that Authority should be appointed to be chairman of the council. If the fourth channel as a whole is brought into operation in any other way—which is the Opposition's proposal—it would be necessary to reconsider how to arrange the Welsh programming, but as much as I should not want it that way I have no doubt that the necessary arrangements could be made. I stress once again that nothing in this Bill—which is directed to the engineering and financing of the fourth channel—will in any way prejudice the eventual constitutional matters which the House will determine when we bring foward our major broadcasting bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: As the money for the setting up of the transmitting facilities will come from the IBA, can the Minister give any


assurance that it will get the money back?

Mr. Rees: I am coming to that section. It is a fair enough question. Indeed, the next heading deals with the cost of engineering the fourth channel. The question was well timed. We estimate that the total cost of engineering the fourth channel throughout the United Kingdom to cover just over 99 per cent. of the population will be about £28 million. The Bill accordingly provides for the full cost to be met. The importance of the Bill, however, lies in enabling the IBA to make a start, as I have said, and to incur a relatively modest part of this expenditure in the near future.
The reserve funds presently available to the IBA are sufficient to meet this initial cost and, indeed, a good deal more. The borrowing powers provided in the Bill would be necessary only at a later stage. In any event, the Authority has indicated that it will not need to use the borrowing powers in the financial year 1979–80.
The Bill empowers the IBA to engineer the fourth channel. Before the Authority commits its resources to that project, it obviously wants to be clear about the financial arrangements. I have already referred to the Bill's flexibility with regard to the service to be transmitted. I have said that nothing in the Bill will prejudice an eventual decision about the OBA or the IBA to run the fourth channel. If, as the Government firmly intend, the OBA is set up, the IBA must be able to charge the OBA for the money that it has expended and for interest and depreciation. This could be done by way of an annual rental or by way of capital repayments.
It would be inappropriate at this stage to attempt to determine the method of repayment in detail. The exact terms would be a matter for discussion between the IBA, the Government and the OBA at the relevant time. This is a financial consideration that the Government will take into account when the structure of the new broadcasting authority is being determined, and the Government will wish to honour their obligation to the IBA on fair terms.
If, at the end of the day, Parliament did not authorise the use by any organisation

of the facilities being provided, the House would need to reconsider what means should then be adopted for the repayment to the IBA of the money that it has expended under the Bill. The Authority has, quite rightly, made clear that it could not properly proceed to incur expenditure under the Bill without an explicit assurance that in these unlikely—I hope—circumstances, the Government would come to Parliament to seek to ensure the means of repayment to the Authority of the money that it has expended. I am glad to give this assurance. The Opposition might like to do exactly the same.
In short, although it has not been necessary to include in the Bill specific provisions about the later reimbursement to the IBA of the money that it expends under the Bill, the matter has been discussed with it. The Government fully recognise that the Authority must be satisfied about its ability to secure repayment before proceeding with the development of the fourth channel. I expect that the assurances that I have given, together with discussions that we shall be having with it about details, will so satisfy the Authority. I also make clear that what I have said about expenditure by the Authority from its own resources would apply to any expenditure from any loans that it might receive from the Exchequer under the Bill.
I turn now to the detailed contents of the Bill. Clause 1 is concerned mainly with enabling the IBA to incur expenditure in providing the necessary transmitting equipment, but it also provides for the construction of certain necessary associated premises. The clause ensures that the continuing programme of expenditure upon which the Authority will embark under the Bill will not be inhibited by the fact that, under present legislation, the functions of the Authority cease on 31 December 1981. Subsequent legislation will deal with the extension of the Authority's function in due course. Although the Government do not intend that the Authority will provide—as distinct from transmit—the service, the clause does not specifically exclude this possibility. I think that that is right, bearing in mind that the basic Bill has not gone through the House.

Mr, Phillip Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend say why clause


I takes that view and the first paragraph of the explanatory and financial memorandum specifically precludes the IBA from providing a service?

Mr. Rees: At the moment, no decision has been taken on that. That is the basic point, and that is for further legislation. In no way am I trying in the Bill to pre-empt the position that the House has not yet decided whether it should be the OBA or the IBA. I think that answers my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Michael English: It is havering.

Mr. Rees: In no way am I havering on this. The Government's view is that the OBA shall do the programming and the IBA the transmission. That is what was in the White Paper originally. There is no havering on it. I hope that my hon. Friend will not impute anything in that respect, because that is fundamentally wrong, and there is no need for him to put it in that way.

Mr. English: Would my right hon. Friend care to put it to the House of Commons?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend seems to think that he has a pre-emptive right to speak on every occasion. There are occations on which other people wish to speak.
Clause 2 deals with the method of financing the proposed expenditure by the IBA on the fourth channel in two ways. It enables the Authority to apply any of its current surpluses on its television account reserves, up to a total limit of £10 million. It also enables the Authority to borrow up to a total limit of £18 million from the Government for the same purpose. These figures meet the anticipated total expenditure of £28 million. The extent of the Authority's commitment from its own resources has been set at a level that will still leave an adequate balance in its reserves to cover its existing television service.
The clause also deals with the arrangements for the repayment to the Government by the IBA of borrowed money and the payment of interest. These arrangements are in accordance with normal procedures.
Clause 3, as with other broadcasting legislation, applies the Bill to Northern Ireland and enables it to be applied to

the Isle of Man and to any of the Channel Islands. It is intended that the fourth channel will ultimately have similar coverage to the existing BBC and ITV services.

Mr. Michael Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify a point concerning the £18 million? Is that figure at 1978–79 prices, or is it at the prices ruling at the time when the Annan committee reported?

Mr. Rees: It is related to 1978–79.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State say how long the delay will be before the fourth channel is available in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rees: It would be exactly the same as in any other part of the United Kingdom. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there would be no difference in that respect. He may be aware of other problems but I am not aware of any. There is no intention to differentiate in this respect.
I commend this modest Bill to the House. The only reason why I have brought it forward is that when I published the White Paper we had thought that the IBA could do the engineering without any further legislation. On subsequent legal advice, which I accept, the view of the IBA is that it could not do it without a Bill of this nature. That is the only reason for the Bill coming forward at this moment.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: This Bill is the first harbinger of spring. It is a snowdrop of a Bill. It is, after all, five years since Lord Annan was resurrected by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). Annan reported in 1977 and we had a debate in this House in the summer of 1977. Since then we have been obliged to wait and wait for the White Paper, which was finally published in the summer of 1978 and is still to be debated by this House. Since then we have been waiting for a 64-clause broadcasting Bill, but of that there is neither sight nor sound, nor will there be this side of a general election.
The future of broadcasting has been frozen by the Government. We know now that, were the Labour Party to be returned to power at an election later this year,


we would be offered the Open Broadcasting Authority for the fourth channel. But were the Conservative Party to be returned the fourth channel would be awarded to the IBA along the lines of its submission relating to ITV2. This mini-Bill allows the IBA to start work on the engineering necessary for a fourth channel, although, as the Home Secretary said, we shall have to wait upon the result of the next election before we know of what kind that fourth channel is to be.
Were the Bill to be passed, it would enable the IBA to equip itself with the installations and services needed to provide a fourth channel, and to spend money on such equipment or to borrow money for the purpose. As we have seen, it may spend up to £10 million from its reserves, and it may borrow up to £18 million from the funds of the public for that purpose. The Bill estimates that the IBA would need a maximum increase of 60 in staff.
The Opposition have no quarrel with these provisions. They will enable whomsoever is elected this year to get the fourth channel quickly on the air—and not before time. We Conservatives want a fourth channel and we believe it should carry minority programmes—not minority programmes of the educational, improving or experimental sort favoured, for example, by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), the father of the OBA. We have no wish to see an Islamic republic declared on the fourth channel. We want the programmes to appeal to a wide range of people, regarding the channel as one of a series of equal choices. We favour ITV2 because the relationship between the two ITV channels would be similar to the relationship between BBC1 and BBC2. We believe that ITV can finance and launch the new channel more economically than can any other new proprietor.

Mr. Michael Morris: My hon. Friend said that the relationship would be the same. Does he mean that the two channels would be in the same ownership?

Mr. Critchley: Yes, indeed they would, because the existing companies would be able to extend their services from ITV1 into ITV2 and, therefore, we would have equality of broadcasting between the two major broadcasting institutions.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. Friend saying that there are no other companies that could put togther a viable service of independent television? Is he aware that there are many people who believe that they could put forward programmes, not identical to those of the present ITV but extremely viable? At the very least, as the party that believes in competition, the Conservative Party should keep an open mind on this before going into the general election.

Mr. Critchley: We certainly believe in competition, but we do not worship it. The question whether any new company might be introduced is for the IBA to decide and not for the House of Commons.

Mr. English: Why not?

Mr. Critchley: In making up our minds, we Conservatives have taken into account two fundamental matters. We do not want a third broadcasting authority, although the OBA would be an authority in name only because it would be dependent upon the moneys that it would have to get from the Government. Secondly, we do not favour any solution that would be a burden upon the Revenue.
It is worth examining briefly how the OBA might be financed because, without any doubt, this is the weakest part of the OBA suggestion. Whereas ITV2, at 1978 figures, would cost between £40 million and £50 million, the OBA would cost between £60 and £70 million, and we should ask how this money will be raised. First, it will be raised out of the Revenue. Socialism, or so Mr. Aneurin Bevan used to say, is the language of priorities. Is the hon. Member for Derby, North really prepared to go to the PLP to argue that his pet scheme is more worthy of Exchequer funds than is any other? Respected as he no doubt is on the Labour Benches, I feel that he would get a short answer were he to try to do so. But then it could be that, not being a Socialist, I am not a good judge of how the PLP would react. But the Revenue would pay its whack.

Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) knows enough about the history of this recommendation to know that the idea of the OBA was not just my idea or that of the chairman


but also of the former vice-chairman of the Conservative Party and the former head of the Conservative research department.

Mr. Critchley: I have a great admiration for Mrs. Sara Morrison, as I have for all the Morrisons in the Conservative Party. But the hon. Member for Derby, North is certainly father of the OBA, and Mr. Anthony Smith is conceivably the other father of that arrangement. We are not here to debate the antecedents of the OBA, but the hon. Gentleman has played a large part in foisting that unfortunate idea on an unwilling Home Secretary and a reluctant Civil Service.
The Revenue, clearly, would pay its whack. Over and above the contribution of the Revenue we are now told that moneys would be raised by sponsorship, block advertising and spot advertising. I do not know what the Fabian Society makes of that. Sponsors will not sponsor unless the audiences are large enough. Block advertising went out years ago with those awful magazine television programmes, while spot advertising, were that to be successful, would start the battle of the rating between OBA, BBC and ITV. Would that raise the standard that we would like to see?
The OBA is an abortion. It has been foisted upon an unwilling Home Secretary. There is already a conflict between the royalists of the Independent Society of British Advertisers, that is, the advertisers, who would strive to turn the OBA into a fully competitive fourth channel, and the roundheads of the Fabian Society to whom the smaller and more unrepresentative the audience the better. One or the other of these strange bedfellows is bound to be disappointed.
ITV2 would cost the Revenue nothing. Indeed, the Revenue would gain. ITV2 would give scope for the regional and smaller ITV companies. On its programme planning board to be overseen by the IBA would sit representatives of the independent producers and educational interests. The major companies, which at the moment contribute more than half of the programmes of ITV1, would make a contribution smaller than that to the second channel. The regional companies should make a contribution at least half as much again to the second channel as they do to the first. Eventually, say 15 per cent. of ITV2 would

be devoted to educational programmes, and there would be room for the independents. ITV2 is much the best of the three choices.

Mr. John Cronin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am enjoying the speech of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), but I am puzzled about its relevance to the Bill.

Mr. Critchley: ITV2 is much the best of the three choices. It is the cheapest. It would be able to cater for minority programmes and would avoid the twin horrors of the ISBA solution, which would Americanise our television, and the OBA, which would institutionalise—

Mr. Clement Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think the House heard your reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Willingly I will give a reply. By tradition, Second Reading debates are allowed to go fairly wide.

Mr. Critchley: It would avoid the twin horrors of the ISBA solution, which would Americanise our television, and the OBA, which would institutionalise ennui by showing programmes few would watch and all of us would be obliged to pay for.
The Home Secretary has had much on his mind recently, but he should pay more attention to the problems of broadcasting. This little Bill is welcome, but one swallow does not make a summer. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a White Paper published last summer has yet to be debated in Parliament, the 64-clause broadcasting Bill has got lost somewhere in the Home Office, and no indication has yet been given as to when the Home Secretary will apply for a supplementary Royal charter for the BBC, an institution that for electoral advantage he is driving still further into debt. Will the Home Secretary start watching Mr. Harry Worth and stop acting like him?

4.28 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: We have all listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). It was difficult to understand its strict relevance to the Bill. No doubt he felt that he was contributing


to the deliberations of the House in a useful way. I would be the last seriously to criticise him, particularly as we have a wide debate on these occasions.
I propose to confine myself strictly to the purpose of the Bill, which is to empower the Independent Broadcasting Authority to equip itself for transmitting a television broadcasting service additional to the present services. I stand here on the side of the angels, and on the side of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. What prompts me to do this is that in the East Midlands—and my constituency is in the East Midlands—there is considerable dissatisfaction with the service provided by ATV. I am sure that the East Midlands area is not unique in this respect and that there are many areas in the United Kingdom—more localised areas—which are dissatisfied with the productions of regional television organisations.
We should analyse this dissatisfaction. Mostly it is expressed by councillors, local authorities, leaders of public opinion and even right hon. and hon. Members. If one analyses the objections, they seem largely based on the fact that there is not sufficiently localised coverage of news and current affairs. This certainly is so in the East Midlands and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) agrees with me on this. We want to ensure that this kind of grievance is put right.
However, there are other considerations and there has been considerable debate in the Midlands generally and in the East Midlands particularly. These debates culminated in a public meeting in my constituency last Friday. Three possibilities were put to the meeting: first, to leave things entirely alone; secondly, to split up the East Midlands; and, thirdly, drastically to reform ATV's coverage. I suggest that these three alternatives probably apply to other independent broadcasting corporations, and the House should consider this.
The first consideration is that there is much more to television than news, news coverage and current affairs. There are entertainment, drama, sports coverage, religion and education.

Mr. Freud: The hon. Member is not sticking strictly to the Bill.

Mr. Cronin: I am glad that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has drawn my attention to the importance of sticking strictly to the Bill, because the importance of changing transmitting facilities so as to cover these points is the whole purpose of my speech.
It seems to me important that the regional organisations should produce much better programmes of a more localised nature, and that involves changing the transmitting facilities. It also involves the question of boundaries.
At the meeting in my constituency the general feeling was in favour of the third possibility—that of improving the performance of ATV. I am sure that if one takes the question nationally this would probably be the answer rather than splitting up the television regions. I should have thought that there was some danger in any independent television region giving way too easily to localised political pressures. That could produce fragmentation of the whole of independent television, which I am sure would have a deleterious effect on the quality of performance. Independent television is competing with the BBC, and if it was further fragmented its competition would be greatly impaired.
One thing which is absolutely certain is that in terms of resources—not merely financial, but human—it is important that television should be broadly based. I suggest, therefore, that there is no real need for splitting up the large regions of independent television but that there is a case for greatly improving their performance in order to satisfy more localised areas. The way to do this is clearly by building up more substations—in other words, improving transmitting facilities.
ATV has already started a news and information centre in Nottingham, but this has been only partially operative on account of trade union difficulties. Many right hon. and hon. Members are probably familiar with the feeling that is created by trade union difficulties at present. I should have thought that there was a very good case for demand being met by substations which can give localised coverage of news and current affairs in the various parts of the region.
A new innovation which probably makes this even more desirable is electronic news gathering—ENG. This again


would be a tremendous help in improving transmissions, although at present ENG is also beset by trade union difficulties.
I suggest that it is important that ATV in the Midlands—it represents quite a large part of transmission in Great Britain, because it stretches from Oxford to Nottingham—should introduce a system of changed relay transmitters, particularly in the East Midlands, with direct links to substations and with ENG units giving the news and current affairs.
I shall truncate my speech, because I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. It is most important that there should be no fragmentation of the large regions. They need resources, both financial and human, on a massive scale. Any improvements that can be made in terms of satisfying the aspirations of small areas—and I regard my own constituency as a small area—could most easily be achieved by substations giving localised news. At the same time, I suggest that to have a really effective news and television service, in terms of the splendid television coverage that can be obtained, the answer is to have large regions and to ensure that those large regions, while looking after the aspirations of local areas, have the financial and human resources to maintain television of the highest standard.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: The Home Secretary said that this was a modest Bill, and I do not think that any one will dissent from that. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) called it a snowdrop of a Bill, which is perhaps a more picturesque description of it. However, it is quite clear that its immediate object is of a fairly technical nature, because it is designed to clear the way for preliminary work on the transmitters that will be needed for the fourth channel.
I remind the House that the initial antagonism to the whole concept of the fourth channel—whether it was engendered on a too parental basis by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) or whether it was the strong heart of the Conservative Party line for ITV2—and certainly the main objection of many people, including some of my constituents, was "Let us get the existing

three channels right before we spend money and time on having a fourth."
In many ways I think that people will not welcome the expenditure of £28 million to do preparatory work for a fourth channel which may be allocated to one or other authority. It seems to me that the normal practice in Westminster, as elsewhere, is to take a decision and then approve the means of carrying it out. What the Bill seeks to do is the reverse. The Bill is carrying out exploratory engineering work prior to taking any decision.
I listened with great care to what the Home Secretary said, and I know that he has given outline consent to this work, but, irrespective of what is done with the £28 million over the next three years, it is essential that all the options remain open. For example, if there is to be an OBA, we do not yet know whether it will be centralised or decentralised.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I want to make it clear that this is not exploratory engineering work. It is the engineering work for a fourth channel, whoever should provide the channel.

Mr. John Ellis: I speak as someone who was on the Select Committee and who has come to listen to the debate. Surely someone must undertake this engineering work. Everyone is agreed that there will be another channel whether it is under the auspices of the OBA, IBA or BBC. The engineering work must be done. Anyone who knows something of this matter cannot but agree that those organisations have the technical expertise to undertake this work. It has been done before, and I believe it is a fair point that must be taken into consideration.

Mr. Freud: I totally accept the intervention of the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). Every television set has four channel buttons, so for heaven's sake let us one day be able to press them and get something out of them. But, if it is to take three or four years to have transmitters that are roughly ready for the fourth channel, can we not also look at some of the misery that is caused by poor transmission in many of the regions? Is that really so far removed from the work that has been done for what will be the fourth channel? In


my own constituency, Radios 2 and 3, which appear to have been allocated to Albania, are exceedingly unsatisfactory. We have thought of moving to Tirana, where presumably we shall get what we used to get for Radio 3 with very much more volume and clarity.
I ask the Home Secretary about this massive sum of money. I say "massive" because a few weeks ago, when I introduced the Official Information Bill and estimated that it would cost £4¼ million, the right hon. Gentleman said "Not from my budget will this money come", as if £4¼ million was a great fortune. But today he is giving away £28 million.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that Radio Albania, as heard through BBC Radio 2 and 3, is not confined to his part of England. It can also be heard, albeit very roughly, in Sussex.

Mr. Freud: I am glad that we have so much in common. I shall detain the House no longer, except to say that although I am pleased to have had the Home Secretary's assurance, this seems to be a cart-before-the-horse situation. I think that the beast would like to know roughly in what direction he will be pushed.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I am glad to find that, as always, the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) was able to give the House one piece of information. I am delighted to hear that the awful noise that we hear coming from BBC Radio 1 is in the Albanian language. That has cleared up a mystery, and obviously there is now some empirical research to back up the hon. Gentleman's argument. I have never been able to understand Radio 1 since its inception.
On a more serious note, I have never been able to understand the unconscionable delay that there has been in implementing the proposals of the committee on the future of broadcasting. It is two years to the week since the Annan committee reported. We are today implementing one of the 174 recommendations—if my memory serves me correctly, it is recommendation 100. There are 173 to go. At the pace of one recommendation every two years, there will be quite a

long time to go before we bring about even a modest change in the broadcasting system.
I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. In saying that, I must enter the caveat that I do not think it goes far enough. It goes along the appropriate road on its own. No one suggests that any other organisation than the IBA, which has the transmitters and the skills, is prepared to do it and has already introduced a good deal of the preliminary engineering works, should be responsible for this task. But I would take a better earnest of the Government's intentions in this matter if we were to have some clearer indication than my right hon. Friend has yet given about the timing of the introduction of the big Bill—the OBA Bill—to which in a sense this Bill is an appendix. The appendix before the body, like the cart before the horse, is an unwieldy way of carrying through legislation.
In fact, we ought now to hear where the main Bill will come from. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) referred to it as a 64-clause Bill. He may be more privileged than I am in knowing what is in it. During this debate I hope to hear that the Bill exists, because its state of readiness or gestation—whoever fathered and mothered it—really conditions the kind and warmth of welcome that we should give to this subsidiary Bill concerned with the engineering works.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman must realise that in this Parliament there is not much opportunity of getting a 64-clause Bill through. In any case, the decision that he is asking to be made had best wait until we know which Government will make it.

Mr. Whitehead: Obviously, the longer time goes on, the more force there will be in that argument. That stands to reason. This Parliament can run only until the end of the summer. That is one reason why I personally regret that this Bill was not introduced in the previous year.
However, there is still time for a great deal to happen in the course of this Parliament. For example, there is time to discuss, and perhaps vote on, the recommendations of the Procedure Committee with regard to our own affairs. There is certainly time for us to consider, give a Second Reading to, and hear the


arguments for and the voice of Parliament concerning the committee of inquiry recommendations, as well as the Government's proposals in the White Paper, on the important matter of the fourth channel. I want to see that sooner rather than later.
Since the hon. Member for Aldershot was judged to be within the rules of order, perhaps I shall be permitted to make a brief reply to some of his elegant witticisms. I have heard them before, but I do not intend to make the same reply to them that I have made on previous occasions. At any rate, one can vary the riposte.
When the hon. Gentleman says, as he did today, that this is a kind of kooky scheme, which by some weird accident happens to have carried the committee of inquiry unanimously, has cleared the Cabinet, has come before us in the White Paper and will lead to a sort of Islamic republic of broadcasting, there speaks the unreconstructed, immovable Pahlevi on the Opposition Front Bench. If only the hon. Gentleman would look behind him, as Mohammed Reza Shah should perhaps have done as well, he will see how many of his hon. Friends are reluctant to follow this long march into the last ditch which he seems to be inflicting on his party.
A number of members of the committee were distinguished Conservatives. There were a former Member of this House, Sir Marcus Worsley, a distinguished industrialist, Mr. Parkes, a former vice-chairman of the party, Mrs. Morrison, and a former Conservative candidate and director of the Conservative research centre, Mr. Goldman. They all signed these recommendations. Need I go on? Were all those people bamboozled by the Islamic republicans? I very much doubt it.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: In that case, how many apart from himself—the honourable Ayatollah—were experienced in the television industry?

Mr. Whitehead: Quite a number were in one way or another. That is something that distinguished this committee from its predecessor.

Mr. Mitchell: Two.

Mr. Whitehead: No, there were more than that. Sir Marcus Worsley himself had been a distinguished BBC Radio producer, although that was rather before my time in the days when the BBC enjoyed a monopoly. I shall come on to the virtues and disadvantages of monopoly in a moment.
The position of my hon. Friend is well known and understood. We know that if these proposals had been discussed in the House, the Opposition could have counted on one extra vote—that of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend is, or was, associated with ITV. He sees a lot of opportunities in ITV and would like to give all of this to ITV. Borrowing the words of Geoffrey Chaucer, I would say to him
 Let Austin have his swink to him reserved ".
He can go on swinking away for ITV as long as he wishes, but every other member of the Labour Party would like to see a new departure. The reason why we have misgivings about this Bill is that we see the road left open for a departure in the old direction rather than in the new one.
In further and final reply to the hon. Member for Aldershot on the remarks that he chose to make about this Bill, I would just say that a number of other people have come out in support of the OBA, for reasons that I think further strengthen my argument that the OBA Bill—if we may call it that—should have accompanied this Bill today.
During a speech that the hon. Member last made at the recent conference—a speech that we have heard yet again to-day—the first person who challenged him from the floor was a life-long member of the Conservative Party, Miss Revel Guest, who runs an independent film company. She argued—as do most of the independent film people—that the OBA was the right choice to make.
Like myself, I do not think that the hon. Member was able to stay until the end; we both had to leave. Had we stayed, we would have heard the advertisers come out in favour, together with the sponsors, saying that perhaps in the first year of operation of the OBA it would be possible to put about £8·5 million into the system by sponsorship


alone. I shall not go on; if I were to do so, I think it would be beyond the rules of order. I merely say that we have sufficient evidence of support for practical and profitable reasons, and for reasons of principle, I believe, within the country and in what are broadly speaking called Conservative circles, for the notion of the OBA, for it not to be a purely political argument between Left and Right, as the hon. Member seeks to make it. It is quite different.
When I think that we are entrusting one half of the duopoly with the engineering works of what ought to be a new service, it does slightly concern me that we have not further limited the degree to which it might be responsible for the provision of that service, other than what is said in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. In other words, we are making too many nervous gestures towards the Opposition's present declared intention of bringing in an ITV2.
A great many people have said—as the hon. Member has said and, no doubt, my hon. Friend, the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will say if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that the fourth channel button is there to be used, that it has to be the cheapest and most practical choice, and that really that should mean ITV. This Bill will be seen by them as a means of giving the IBA the opportunity of doing the groundwork for what they always intended to be ITV2. Such people depress me rather when they use the kind of examples that we heard at the conference which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot and I attended the other day. When speaking for the association of the companies—ITCA—Mr. Brown, from Scottish Television, said that it would be much more economic to do it in this way. He said that a fourth channel would be operated more economically by ITV than
 by a new body artificially created to fulfil a broadcasting role of which it has not had previous experience.
What was the then ITA, when it first came in, but a broadcasting body that had no previous experience in the field?
One of the great tragedies of broadcasting in this country is how little those who control the real estate of broadcasting

are prepared to allow other people into the act. That is the problem. That is why we do not get genuine broadcasting pluralism in this country. That is what I think is wrong. Recently, I had to look at the fourth volume of the "History of Broadcasting in Britain" by Lord Briggs. In it he outlines all the plans that the BBC put forward to try to stop the monopoly being broken by ITV in the early 'fifties. There was only one thing wrong with all those plans: there were six of them, and every one entailed the BBC's retaining the monopoly in some way or another—at one remove, perhaps, but keeping the monopoly.
Those arguments were shot down with contempt, quite rightly, by the Government of the day. It was right to break the monopoly, and I think it is right to break the duopoly now. If we are therefore going on to a system in which there will really be three broadcasting organisations, as I believe we are, we should also say to the IBA that it is not merely being asked to do this engineering work for a fourth channel with which it will have nothing thereafter to do, but it is being asked to do it as part of the contribution that, quite properly, independent television should make to the coming of the new service.
Simultaneously we should say to the IBA—and here I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin)—that there are many opportunities for creative innovation, an increase of competition and a better grass roots service within the ITV franchises themselves.
As we are discussing engineering works here in this Bill, I presume it is in order to say, referring back again to the parent Act of 1973, that we shall have to discuss—it may be relevant to discuss it in Committee—the degree to which re-engineering will be necessary if the IBA, in proper time, is to introduce, as I think it should, changes in the franchise areas before the next round of contracts. I am very strongly in favour of having a separation of the present ATV area in the Midlands, where I live, to give the East Midlands area a genuine regional service of its own in addition to the service put out by ATV for the West Midlands and for a vast area around the West Midlands.

Mr. John Ellis: The case that my hon. Friend makes out is a very compelling one. It would be a tragedy, would he not agree, if we just stuck another broadcasting facility on the existing transmitters that would produce more of the same thing? Would that not be the danger, whether it was the BBC, the IBA or anything that is more of the same thing?
On the engineering side, it is necessary, does he not agree, that they have some regard to that when they do this work so that there is maximum opportunity to change districts and areas, to make them bigger or smaller, in any way that is required?

Mr. Whitehead: I absolutely agree. It has been said that the local regions in broadcasting terms were invented by engineers in this country. To some degree, engineers still dictate what is practicable.
If we are talking about the East Midlands—and we have an almost exclusively East Midlands contingent in the House at this moment—I think that we can say that the major re-engineering would have to be done to the Nottinghamshire transmitter. That in itself would probably not be enough for the kind of East Midlands region of which I am thinking.
My hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that one wants to keep transmitter engineering as flexible and versatile as possible, in order to allow a number of options. These options are not simply a question of the OBA if the Labour Party stay in or of ITV2 if the Conservatives get in; they are options about local service and variations within the region, on which surely we can all agree. We can say to the IBA in this matter "For heaven's sake be courageous, give us variety, and you will have a lead from Parliament in these matters, a clear indication of what people in the regions concerned would like."
There is a clear indication, too, from the last time round. I see that the hon. Gentleman who is a director of Granada Television is here; the division of the Granada area into Granada and Yorkshire certainly did not damage Granada, I think, and it gave more competition and variety within the network system of ITV. We should like to see that done again—not of course down to

the level of the absolute minimum, but in those regions where a proper local service could be given.
I would like to end on this note. It is 10 years now since I and many other people have been working for changes in broadcasting that would lead to a greater pluralisation. My children, my friends and everyone else ask me what I have been doing in those 10 years. We had a 10-year reunion the other day of an organisation called the 76 Group, which was set up to campaign for an inquiry into broadcasting, to report in 1976. We got the inquiry, and it reported only one year late. Ten years later all of those people met, a little sadder, perhaps a little wiser, and asked themselves the question: "What do you think has happened? What have you done in that time?" We did not ask for any revolutionary changes. We said that we would go through the "consensus" way; we would call for committees of inquiry; we would argue and persuade the committee of inquiry and obtain our unanimous verdict from it and bring the matter before Parliament; we would have it debated in the public arena and then it would be passed into legislation.
As I said to my right hon. Friend today, it would be an absolute tragedy if this Parliament were to come to an end without the Bill being brought forward. We know the disadvantages that he has in the Home Office; we know that some of the people there do not like it; there are all kinds of reasons—it is perfectly true; my hon. Friend need not shake his head—and we know what are those disadvantages. We do not need anybody to argue for the disadvantages. The disadvantages argue for themselves.
Whatever happens at the end of the debate and during the present Parliament, one of the ways in which the Home Office will be judged during my right hon. Friend's tenure is the degree of willingness that it has shown to embrace the modest changes—organic reform rather than revolutionary change—brought forward by the committee of inquiry and endorsed in the White Paper. When the Government spokesman replies, I want to hear it stated that the Bill will pass through Committee concurrently with an announcement of the date when


the OBA Bill is to be brought before the House. That is the least that the Government can do.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Jim Lester: I am happy to take up some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) as I agree with so much of what he has suggested for East Midlands television. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman made the correct analysis but drew the wrong conclusion. I fail to see what help it would be for a major television company to establish additional studios similar to the unused one at Nottingham to further the interests of the region.
We all welcome new technology. However, that will be brought about only through the operation of a new company that is established on the basis of setting new standards of genuine technological competition.
I welcome the proposals in the Bill as far as they go. Apart from establishing the fourth channel, the engineering money could be wisely used at the same time to take into account the East Midlands. I am sure that the Home Secretary will hear many more voices this afternoon to that effect. The 33 East Midlands Members on both sides of the House are overwhelmingly in favour of establishing a new franchise that reflects the needs of the area. That concept is supported by all the district councils in the region and the county councils. I am sure that in the forthcoming exercise to be undertaken by the IBA of public participation in the new franchises there will be discovered overwhelming grass roots support.
Both the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) have listened carefully to representations made by hon. Members. The essential criteria that need to be established have so far been met. Social cohesion is the first criterion. East Midlands and West Midlands Members know very well that the East Midlands stands on its own as a region. The second criterion is the financial consideration. It is already established that an East Midlands television company would be viable in that sense.
The real difficulty—it was made clear at the public meeting called by the BBC—is the technical problem. Without wasting the time of the House reiterating the details of transmitters covering the East Midlands, I tell the Home Secretary forcefully, in support of what other hon. Members have said, that wisdom suggests that planning provision should be made, along with other IBA procedures, provided that all other criteria are satisfied in the establishment of East Midlands television, to use part of the £28 million to ensure that the technical issue will not be produced at the end to frustrate the genuine will of the people of the East Midlands.
I shall welcome assurances on the issues to which I have referred and I hope that they will be borne in mind by the IBA and throughout the Bill's passage in Committee.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I welcome the Bill, although it may be the cart before the horse. It is the first positive step after months of delay. I do not blame the Government for the long delay, I blame the Annan committee. The committee—this applies especially to its representative who is a Member of this place—seems to have taken up an idea that is attractive to a small number of intellectually motivated men. I say "intellectually motivated" because they certainly were not practically motivated men. Surely it is not practical to erect a beautiful theoretical concept that is about as useful and as comprehensible as the Chaucerian quote with which I was belaboured by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), to my bemused incomprehension.
The Annan committee erected the road block of the Open Broadcasting Authority. That has effectively blocked all progress towards not only the fourth channel but the fifth and sixth channels that we should have. That is what we should be talking about in this channel-starved country.
The Annan committee has stopped progress in that direction, to the harm of an industry that desperately needs expansion and the boost that would come from a new channel that would be an opening for new ideas and new talent. That


is the boost which ITV provided in the 1950s, which BBC2 provided in the early 1960s and which the reshuffling of the contracts provided in the late 1960s. That boost has not been provided in the 1970s.
The Annan committee has blocked progress, to the harm of the viewer. The viewer is not getting a wider choice. He is not getting the leaven to the stale mix of programmes consisting of endless repeats and repetition of the same safe formula with which the viewer is now belaboured as I am belaboured with Chaucerian quotations.
My welcome for the Bill would be pure and unalloyed if it were not for the weasel words "to transmit" rather than "to provide" a fourth channel. Progress has been speeded, but as long as that premise remains it is progress down a dead-end street towards the OBA.
The basic motive behind the OBA is a good one. It is an attempt to bring diversity and variation to British television. However, the unfortunate fact is that in taking up the idea of the OBA the Annan committee has latched on to an alien concept of publishing that has no place in the experience of the television industry. We do not achieve pluralism in one channel. Pluralism in one channel is about as likely as Socialism in one country. We achieve pluralism through a diversity of channels and not by creating a dustbin channel into which anything can be shoved ad lib that is not related to the preceding or following programmes in any way. Pluralism will not be achieved by using another channel as a relegation hole for a diversity of programmes that should be spread over a series of channels.
The Annan committee and the White Paper on broadcasting put the OBA in an impossible position. It has been designated specifically as a channel that will be used to appeal to minority tastes. That is its designation in the White Paper. However, it will be dependent on advertising. That means that it will have to compete for audiences with the two popular channels; that means that it will have to reduce itself to their level and their sorts of programme to achieve the mass audience that the advertisers will need, or it will have to be a ghetto channel, a fretwork

network, with a smaller audience than BBC2.
The BBC2 audience seems to average about 8 per cent. of the viewing public. That is its audience after 15 years of cross-promotion on BBC1, the popular channel. BBC1 attempts to recruit viewers for BBC2. If the OBA is to be a minority channel and is to be on its own, its position is bound to be even worse than that of BBC2, which has the advantage of cross-promotion. If it has an audience that is smaller than that of BBC2, it will not be attractive to advertisers. That means that it will be dependent on public money.
The criticism is realistic. There will be a continuous chorus of complaints about public money being used to fund an inherently profitable medium to provide programmes for minority tastes. That in turn will make the Government more niggardly than they should be and television deserves. That will handicap the OBA, the fourth channel, from the start.

Mr. Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend aware that no one has ever suggested that the OBA should be a channel on which only minority programmes will qualify to be shown? He is trying to persuade the House that either the programmes will be too popular or that they will not be popular enough. Has he ever heard of programme controllers who strike a balance between the two extremes?

Mr. Mitchell: The fourth channel will either have to compete by broadcasting popular programmes or become a minority channel. If it is to be a minority channel, its position will be even weaker than that of BBC2 as it will not have the advantage of complementary programmes and cross-promotion. The only way to provide a real choice and an escape from the ghetto is complementary programming and genuine choice, namely, channels providing programmes that are different.
The real challenge of television is not the provision of minority programmes appealing to minority tastes. That is the easiest part of television. It might be expensive, but it is easy to do. The challenge is to take minority subjects for minority tastes, perhaps, and make them appealing and interesting to a wider audience. To undertake that task it is necessary to fulfil certain requirements. It


is necessary to have a popular channel with a reasonable amount of audience loyalty to that channel. Secondly, one needs producers with a populist flair for making subjects interesting but not trivial. A ghetto Open Broadcasting Authority seems to have neither of those two advantages.
A further argument for the OBA is that independent production houses will be stimulated. "Let a hundred production houses blossom" is a slogan with which I have every sympathy. But there are not many independent production houses and it will probably take a long time for them to develop contacts with the fourth channel. The need now is to provide a new outlet for the talent, enthusiasm and ability in the existing production companies. This is the more pressing need. Ideas grow and develop from continuous progress of production and not in abstract isolation in an independent production house. One programme idea flows from another and from continuous work within a production company.
Finally, it comes from regional roots—from companies which are based in the regions and drawing strength from those regions. All too often, companies are run from London and manned by people who see their first job as getting back to London as quickly as possible. The companies must be those serving the regions and genuinely rooted in the regions, which is how the idea of independent television started and still has a long way to go towards its fulfilment. The need is for regions that are manageable which a company can serve and where it can take roots. For instance, ATV seems too large at the moment, as the assembly of East Midlands MPs, who seem to be dominating the debate, have pointed out. Delenda est ATV is not my concern because I have not the same vested commercial interest in this operation as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that he had not the same vested interest. So far as I know, no Member representing the East Midlands, either Labour or Conservative, has any vested interest whatever

in the desire to create a separate television service for that region.

Mr. Mitchell: I withdraw the allegation of the vested commercial interest.

Mr. Whitehead: Would my hon. Friend accept that I have no interest in any consortium in the Midlands or anywhere else, and never have had?

Mr. Mitchell: Certainly, I would accept that.
The point is that the splitting of ATV is one example of the creation of regions that can be served by companies genuinely and firmly rooted in those regions which will provide lively centres of ideas outside London. This is one of my dominant interests in the debate. The Annan committee does not seem to have taken sufficient cognisance of this "outside London" dimension. The only effective production houses on any scale of any ability outside London are regional ITV companies which need to fulfil the regional commitment of ITV but can provide the nucleus for expansion.
Setting up a fourth channel is bound to mean drawing up a set of fine balances. There is a need to be complementary to ITV but not to be dominated by the moguls of the production companies. There is a need to be independent but not to be publicly financed or a pale imitation of the BBC or ITV.
That points to either a channel controlled by the IBA or by an authority twinned with the IBA and either drawing up its programme schedule in consultation with the IBA or submitting it to the IBA. This is the only way we can secure the advantage of complementary programming and promotion by another channel that will build up the audience and provide diversity for the ITV audience. It would be a channel in which the companies would sell advertising which gives them a vested interest in the success of the channel but also financed by the levy on ITV out of which the companies secure rebates for programmes produced for the fourth channel. In other words, there will be an incentive to produce for the fourth channel and an incentive to push the fourth channel in the regions. There will be an incentive to make it complementary and functioning genuinely with ITV.
I hope that the opportunity provided—it is the only justification for the delay


that has occurred—will be taken to think along these directions as the scheme is developed. Otherwise, the provision that we are making today for a transmitter framework for the fourth channel will be largely unnecessary because of the smallness of the audience for which that channel will be catering.
If the OBA scheme proceeds as outlined in the White Paper, it should only do so with the proviso that occurred over devolution, requiring an Order in Council unless that fourth channel gets 40 per cent. of the potential audience and proves that it is an effective, attractive channel which will gain and provide for the needs of a large audience.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) described this as a cart-before-the-horse Bill. I believe that it is rather a case of finding the cart and then having to place wheels under it and finding a horse to drag it.
The IBA told the working party on the Welsh television fourth channel project published simultaneously with the White Paper that it could, if authorised, go ahead immediately with the construction of transmitters required for the fourth channel service. It is a matter for some regret that neither the Home Office nor the legal advisers to the IBA seem to have found out in time that our debate today and this mini-Bill would be required before they could carry out the commitment in paragraph 7.14 of the report of that working party. The report states in paragraph 7.15:
 The IBA tells us that it has sufficient staft to carry out the necessary fourth channel construction programme in Wales in much the same order as the existing HTV Wales UHF service was provided without any detrimental effect to the continuation of the engineering work mentioned in the previous paragraph.
That referred to increasing the amount of coverage available in the rest of Wales on the UHF service.
I wish that we had received earlier indication from the IBA's legal advisers that the Bill would be required. This is a piece of broadcasting legislation which was first not required. When it emerged that it was required, it seems to have become the only broadcasting Bill that is likely to emerge from this Government. The proposal for the fourth

television channel in Wales to be allocated mainly to Welsh language television programmes was incorporated in the report of the Crawford committee which reported on broadcasting coverage in the United Kingdom in November 1974.
One of my first activities as an MP was giving evidence to that committee. The committee reported that the service for Wales should start as soon as possible and that the decision should be taken for Wales ahead of the implementation of the fourth channel in the rest of the United Kingdom. That position was accepted by the then Home Secretary. Roy Jenkins, but no action was taken. According to the Government, it was because there were financial constraints on public expenditure at that time.
It seems that we have made very little progress on that original acceptance by the Government of the Crawford committee recommendations on the fourth channel in Wales. We have since then had working parties. There was originally the Siberry working party and then the Annan committee report and Littler working party. We also have the Government's own White Paper.
I should like to refer to what the Home Secretary, in the absence of progress on the fourth channel proposals, said about the interim expansion in Welsh language children's programmes. I should like to compliment him on the progress that he has been able to make over the use of licence fee money by the BBC for this purpose and also on the discussions that have taken place between his Department, the BBC and the IBA and, indirectly, the commercial company, HTV, operating in Wales, about the increase in programmes for children. This is the only development that I can welcome in the context of these proposals.
We are now entering a situation in which the commitment for Wales is once again in danger of disappearing. Whereas that commitment had priority in the original view of the Crawford committee and in the subsequent view accepted by the Government, that priority is now disappearing. The proposal for the fourth channel in Wales as a Welsh language channel is under severe threat because of the Government's failure to legislate on the OBA concept. It is quite clear that, without the framework of the OBA


for the whole of Britain, the concept of a national service for Wales giving priority to Welsh language broadcasting on the fourth channel is threatened.
In paragraph 66 and succeeding paragraphs of the White Paper on broadcasting the Government dealt with the Welsh language service. It is significant that no reference at all was made to this service when the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) spoke on the subject today, despite the reference by the Home Secretary. I look forward to some response to what I have to say now from the Conservative spokesman who winds up the debate for the Opposition, because the House and the country of Wales have a right to know how the Conservative Party would, if elected to Government, implement the policy of the fourth channel in Wales.
In paragraph 68 of the White Paper the Government made it clear that the scheme of the fourth channel in Wales under the OBA would be a national service for Wales, to which the three broadcasting organisations could contribute. That is severely threatened by the ITV2 proposal. Looking at the discussion in the report of the working party on the Welsh television fourth channel project, chaired by Mrs. Littler, we see discussion at length on what the report describes as
 Option 2—the implications for Wales of an ITV2-type service on the fourth channel in the United Kingdom ".
This was a joint working party, with membership from the Home Office, the Welsh Office and the broadcasting authorities. The conclusions of the working party, at paragraph 6.23 of the report, are these:
 We judge that such a situation "—
an ITV2-type service for the whole of the United Kingdom—
 would have serious implications for the BBC Wales and HTV Wales joint Welsh language programme service.
The report makes it clear that if there were an ITV2 service for the whole of the United Kingdom it would not be possible to move ahead with the kind of national Welsh language priority service which the fourth channel should be, according to the Crawford, Annan and subsequent recommendations.
Therefore, it seems clear that the cooperation which could have emerged under an OBA system between the BBC and the present or a future contractor for ITV in Wales cannot find any place in an ITV2 system. We have already had references from the hon. Member for Aldershot about minority audiences not being a burden on the Revenue. With all due respect, I say to him that the Government have already made a commitment in the broadcasting White Paper and through the working party—carefully studied concerning funding—that there has to be either a grant-in-aid from the Government or some alternative form of public funding through the OBA buying Welsh language programmes from an existing or future independent contractor in Wales and BBC Wales in order to ensure that there is cross-funding for what would be a minority audience of some 500,000 Welsh speakers as a potential audience for that channel.
The funding for Welsh language programmes must come from public expenditure. It cannot come from advertising because, except for public service advertising, there is no such commercial advertising on HTV Wales in the Welsh language, and it is not conceivable that there would be massive advertising revenue accruing with an audience of 500,000.
Therefore, I think that we have a right to know how the Conservative Opposition intend to honour any commitment that has been made about the extension of Welsh language programmes and to know whether there will be any clear statement from the Conservative Opposition tonight of their intentions concerning the fourth television channel in Wales.
As regards the separation of languages in broadcasting in Wales, the problem has very deep implications for the way in which the media in Wales are organised. I do not want to go into a long and detailed explanation, which would be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the result of the recent referendum which took place in Wales, but certainly one of the factors in the referendum must have been the fact that at least 30 per cent. of the estimated number of viewers of television in Wales view from transmitters based outside Wales. As a result, in no way could they participate in the general referendum debate. That might


appear to be a benefit or a disbenefit, but certainly the way in which the Welsh television media are organised means that at present some 30 per cent. of potential viewers of Welsh programmes turn their aerials towards transmitters outside Wales.
Therefore, the creation of a separate Welsh language television channel would enable the present slots which are filled by Welsh language programmes on the existing ITV and BBC channels to be filled by English language programmes generated for a Welsh audience and providing a Welsh cultural content as contrasted with a Welsh language and cultural content, thereby enabling us to speak to ourselves in a far more adequate and fair way.
The Conservative Party must grasp this problem. However, from the contributions that we have heard so far this evening it appears to me that the Conservatives have entirely failed to do that. The hon. Member for Aldershot, or one of his hon. Friends, should seek the immediate assistance of the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) in trying to formulate some kind of reply as to what the Conservative Party intends to do.
I have been unable so far to provoke any interventions from the hon. Member for Aldershot. Therefore, I move rapidly on to refer to one particular issue which concerns me as we look to the future of television provision in Wales. That is the abysmal failure of the broadcasting authorities and, indeed, the education authorities in Wales to mount any kind of training programme for the expansion of Welsh language television. It was estimated in the original Siberry working party report that the expanded service on the fourth channel in Wales would require some 400 additional staff with wide-ranging technical skills. But it seems clear from correspondence, which has been published, between Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg—the Welsh Language Society's mass media group—and the BBC and HTV that there has been no move towards internal training programmes in Cardiff by either HTV or BBC to cope with the obvious need to expand the numbers that will be employed with the required skills on the fourth channel.
The delay that we have experienced since 1974 in implementing the Government's

commitment has led to the cynical view among broadcasters in Wales and among administrators in both broadcasting organisations that there is no point in preparing for the fourth channel in Welsh language programmes because it appears that such a channel is not likely to go ahead in any event. The delay has, therefore, demoralised broadcasters in the Principality. They are no longer able to look forward to development. The delay has created deepening frustration.
I speak as one who has tried to play some constructive part in this whole broadcasting debate over the last five years. I have to warn the House that if the Government do not honour their commitment there will be—however regrettable it may be from the point of view of those who seek democratic constitutional changes in politics—an increase in activism by Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, which is committed to the establishment of this fourth channel and some of whose members have been involved in various forms of illegal activity in constituencies within and outside Wales. At the moment two leading members of the society, Wynford James and Rhodri Williams, are imprisoned in Swansea for a conspiracy offence connected with interference with broadcasting installations.
It seems that there is a necessity for the Government as well as the Opposition to understand the motives of the people in Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, who resort to illegal forms of direct acting against broadcasting property because they are frustrated at the continual delay in implementing Government commitments. It is one thing to argue with a Government who refuse to meet a demand or refuse to change a policy. It is something else to have to argue with a Government who accept a policy but will not implement it.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It will be abundantly clear that the reason for this Bill, which will make provision to get the engineering done early, is the impossibility of the IBA doing it. There is nothing here or in the Bill which has not yet been introduced which reneges on any commitment. In no way can the activities of members of the Welsh Language Society be accepted in this House—I am not referring to cases which are sub judice—as justification for what they are doing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman


is not doing that, because if their motives are prompted by what they see as commitments being broken they are wrong. One of the things that emerged last week was the bitterness that has arisen as a result of the activities of the Welsh Language Society.

Mr. Thomas: The Home Secretary refers to bitterness. That bitterness exists when a minority is unable to obtain what it sees as its rights. In this case the right of communication is involved and the political system is not prepared to concede those rights.

Mr. English: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that viewers often feel that they are suffering from vested interests which dominate them? The hon. Gentleman's case involves the cause of the Welsh language. That is not so in the East Midlands. There we are dominated by programmes from Thames Valley or Birmingham.

Mr. Thomas: I agree with that entirely, and the regionalisation of the reflection of cultural identity, and the cultural pluralism, referred to by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), is the whole basis of my argument. People in various cultural regions should have the opportunity to communicate with one another without interference. In Wales, this means the provision in the Welsh language for the half million of us who speak Welsh as a first language and who want to be part of a lively popular mass culture in that language. We want those who speak English as a first and only language to have a popular Welsh culture disseminated to them through the medium of English. That can be achieved only if and when the commitment on the fourth television channel goes ahead in Wales, so that we can have both services, with resources devoted to both.
All the frustration and bitterness which have been created in Wales arise from a failure of the political system in this place. That failure is compounded by the official Opposition in their lack of a statement so far. The failure of the system in this place is a failure to meet the legitimate demands of both cultural groups in Wales. I would not, in this place or outside it, defend the use in this context of illegal tactics to achieve policy changes, but it would be a foolish and

blind Administration which did not recognise the motive behind the actions of Cymdeithas Yr Iaith Gymraeg. The motive is to ensure control of the media in Wales by the two cultural groups there.
I hope that the assurances given by the Home Secretary mean that there is to be no reneging and no moving back. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Home Secretary, since I have discussed these issues with him at great length over the last three years. But it appears increasingly in Wales that commitments made to us are not being honoured because of a failure by the Government to organise their own policies in the context of the United Kingdom.
Policies for Wales which were supposed to have priority over the rest of the United Kingdom in the original commitment by the Government then became part of the overall post-Annan framework for the United Kingdom. It now appears that the famous 64-clause Bill for the United Kingdom organisation of broadcasting is not to be produced in this Session, or it is certainly not to be enacted in this Session.
That means therefore that the commitment for Wales will be lost with the failure to enact a policy for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is not surprising, because throughout the history of Welsh politics commitments made to Wales have been lost in this House because of a failure in radicalism on the part of successive Labour Governments. It is a matter of bitter regret to me that the Home Secretary and the Government have not been able to produce a United Kingdom framework that will enable the fourth channel project in Wales to go ahead.
It is equally and abysmally clear that the Conservative Opposition have no proposals for Wales whatever. Therefore we shall have to consider the failures of the Labour Government and balance them alongside the absence of policies from the Conservative Opposition when we decide in any future event how we may have to vote in the House.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to make a brief contribution because I am concerned that this apparently trivial piece of legislation should be introduced at this


time. There seems to be no real reason for it and I wonder how it happened. I should be interested if my right hon. Friend would explain it. Perhaps the Secretary of State took the initiative and said, one day, when he arrived at the Home Office, "We should innovate and we must get this legislation through". Or perhaps it was a minute prepared by a civil servant who suggested that this initiative should be taken. I do not take the view that civil servants are neutral and isolated. I take the view that they are a tightly knit group of politically motivated people.
It is possible that they decided that this was a facility which should be passed in the last few months of a Labour Government. We are bound to have an election some time this year and perhaps they felt that they should, as a safeguard, have this bit of legislation on the statute book. Otherwise, it simply does not make sense, because there are a number of things about the major broadcasting legislation which we would like to examine. This should be done in conjunction with this legislation and not in isolation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that this Bill does not exclude the possibility of the IBA transmitting a service. Of course it does not.
If by some fluke the Conservatives win the general election—and it would be a fluke—they have made it clear that they will hand over this fourth channel to ITV2. They will increase the power of the existing companies. Since that is the case, and since this legislation amends the 1973 Act, we should examine what type of control the IBA has exercised in the years between the passage of the Act and today. There seems to be a little too much cosy consensus that the IBA is doing a first-rate job. That simply is not correct.
What startles me is that the merchants on the Conservative Benches who are always calling for a greater emphasis on law and order do not follow closely the 1973 Independent Broadcasting Authority Act. I refer to schedule 2 to the Act, "Rules as to Advertisements". One of the reasons why I should like the major legislation to be introduced is, as the White Paper suggests in paragraph 21, that the OBA would be subject to the same advertising rules. This House ought

to have a very close look at these advertising rules. We said, in "Labour's Programme 1973":
 In television, the dependence of the independent companies upon advertising revenue has tended to be the enemy of innovation, or of programmes for minority tastes and has encouraged those made according to safe formulae. Through the fight for ratings, the same influence has been extended to the BBC ".
We said, therefore, that the influence of advertising shaped the position. What has the IBA done? Schedule 2(3) to the 1973 Act states:
 The amount of time given to advertising in the programmes shall not be so great as to detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of information, education and entertainment.
I wonder whether the IBA has exercised tight control over that aspect. I wonder whether it has given sufficient attention to schedule 2(4), which states:
 Advertisements shall not be inserted otherwise than at the beginning or end of the programme or in natural breaks therein.
The controversy about natural breaks seems to have died down. Natural breaks are part of the routine and yet programmes which were deliberately designed to be shown continuously are broken night after night on ITV.
The controlling body, the IBA, is to be given additional powers in this Bill, although it has shown itself to be incapable of applying existing legislation. I refer to the showing of feature films or plays on ITV. Those plays and films were never designed, except in one or two isolated cases, to be shown with breaks.
When breaks occurred in feature films we used to shout "Put a penny in the gas". Films are designed to be shown continuously. The writers, directors and producers make a great effort to produce a worthwhile film. What happens when such films are shown by the IBA? I do not know who selects the natural breaks, but most feature films are torn to shreds by so-called natural breaks and the intrusion of advertising. That means that feature films—some of which are puerile but others of which are important artistic efforts—are subjugated to the commercial needs of advertiisng.

Mr. Michael Morris: rose—

Mr. Cryer: I shall give way to the hon. Member, who has an advertising interest.

Mr. Morris: I declare an interest as a director of an advertising agency. Does not the hon. Member take on board the point that was made by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and others that the best television is that which is produced for that medium? The hon. Member seems to be saying that the television medium should lay itself before the cinema medium and that films that are made for the cinemas should be transmitted automatically on to television. Surely what the IBA and commercial contractors have done is to produce films and plays which are geared to the television medium with the natural breaks built in.

Mr. Cryer: Plays can be written to be produced in 15 or 20 minutes, so that an advertisement can be inserted. That argument has certain legitimacy. However, television companies want to show feature films. Many people want to see them. But the people who made those films did not know that they would be chopped up by advertisements. The parallel would be if Pearl and Dean suddenly shot on to the screen 30 seconds or a minute of advertising in the middle of a cinema programme. That would produce an outcry from the auditorium.
Occasionally films are made with a built-in intermission, but such films are extraordinary. The general rule is that feature films are shown in an uninterrupted fashion. When election results are being announced, ITV deems that that is too important a programme to be chopped up and subordinated to commercial considerations. Normally, commercial breaks do not interrupt such programmes. I say that the IBA should exercise its judgment more on the type of programmes which are transmitted and the licence that is given to the independent companies to chop up programmes because of commercial considerations alone.
There is much to be said about aesthetic merits, but the legislation does not involve a judgment of the artistic merit of a film or play. A play that is transmitted on television should be transmitted as the author and producer wish it, and not at the behest of the commercial manager or television contractor. The legislation states that:
 Advertisements shall not be inserted otherwise than at the beginning or the end of the programme or in natural breaks therein.

One can envisage that authors will now write allowing for breaks for advertisements. For example, a modern-day Shakespeare would write a play allowing for natural breaks for television advertising. That would be a prostitution of artistic merit to the needs of commerce.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I declare an interest as a member of the Independent Broadcasting Authority's general advisory council. I can assure the hon. Member that the IBA pays careful attention to the question of natural breaks in the movies to which he has referred. There is no evidence whatsoever that any section of the public shares the hon. Member's outrage at advertisements shown during some old and valuable movies.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member has two arguments. First, he says that the IBA shows concern. That is not translated on to the screens, because commercials are shown in the middle of feature films. Secondly, the hon. Member says that nobody else shares my outrage. I do not know whether he has evidence of that assertion. I do not suppose that hon. Members eagerly seek round to see whether the law is being administered properly and gather evidence of concern before they raise a matter in Parliament. On that basis we should raise only those subjects which have been measured by opinion polls.
I believe that my attitude is shared by others. If we are to pass legislation the provisions of which are to be administered by an organisation, we should ensure that that organisation is making a good job of applying that legislation. From the evidence that I have observed, the IBA is not making a good job of applying Schedule 2, which is crucial because it forms the whole basis of ITV.
I do not wish to assist in the process of handing over the fourth channel to the IBA. I am not satisfied with the IBA. I do not wish it to have the fourth channel. I do not know why we are oiling the wheels towards that end. I do not know why this Bill is being taken in isolation from the other Bill. If the other Bill incorporates the financing of the OBA, we should examine Schedule 2 even more closely.

Mr. Critchley: The hon. Member is suggesting that the Bill will make our life


easier. Is he prepared to concede the result of the general election already?

Mr. Cryer: I am not prepared to concede the result of the election. I am saying that this legislation should be accompanied by the other 64-clause Bill. I see no reason why that should not happen. I do not wish things to be taken in isolation. I do not concede that there will be a Tory victory. I believe that when the election comes there will be a Labour victory. I see no reason for the Bill now, when it should be accompanied by the other legislation.
Finally, I quote again from "Labour's Programme for 1973". We said that
 Our aim must be to devise a structure that will allow much greater variety and genuine freedom in communications. It must lay emphasis on the business of communicating rather than on that of making profits; on freedom from Government control and censorship; on freedom for new people and publications to enter into the industry and not be immediately defeated by high fixed costs or the semi-monopolistic behaviour of competitors; and on the need for greater freedom for those working within the media both to express their views and to share in the decision-making process.
That is a fair ideal, which reflects the common sense and decency of the Labour Party. The OBA goes some way towards measuring up to that ideal. I fail to see why we cannot look at that legislation and why we are taking this in isolation. It leaves the lingering suspicions that an unnecessary initiative has been taken and that if there is any difficulty at the election the path is eased. In any case, there is no argument for taking the two Bills in isolation. We want to see the colour and character of the legislation before giving more power to the IBA.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: The conjecture of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) about the next election is as far from the mark as his concern about the influence of advertising on television programming. The Annan report gave advertising a clean bill of health in its lack of effect on television programming. That is borne out by every opinion poll on attitudes to advertising, particularly advertising on television.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the importance of the fourth channel in Welsh. Perhaps the House is inclined to attach too much

importance to that aspect of the Bill. He was talking of minority groups, yet we are discussing funding for broadcasting which is not essentially designed for minority groups. If it were, it would be called "narrowcasting".
Only last week we saw the lack of inclination of many people in Wales to think
"Welshly". At lunchtime today I learned that the Leader of Plaid Cymru in Cardiff takes pride in having his television aerial tuned to Bristol. It should be considered whether this driving impetus to create more Welsh programming represents a widespread need in Wales.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) referred to the results of the referendum as Welsh people deciding not to think "Welshly". If he had paid attention to the campaign, he would know that the opponents of the Welsh Assembly were in favour of some form of devolution. It was nothing to do with the cultural, ethnic or national identity of Wales. It was a decision based only on one set of political proposals. Secondly, linguistic minorities are in difficulty when one considers their demands, particularly if they are bilingual, as 80 per cent. of the Welsh people are. Because we can understand English language programmes, we should not be denied the means of mass communication of popular culture in our language.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) has made one speech. We must allow the orginal speaker to resume.

Mr. Rathbone: I ask your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in measuring the time that I speak.
The Home Secretary referred to the Welsh Broadcasting Council. Will he ensure that the various geographic areas in Wales are represented according to population when that council is established? There are different attitudes to Wales and Welshness between Southern and Northern Wales.
On the Bill as a whole, I should like to know what allowance for inflation there is in the money that is being voted to build the transmitters. If no allowance is made, how will the IBA be recompensed for the additional financial burden? Secondly, has the Minister ensured that the IBA has had competitive bids? If not


has the Minister approached other organisations, such as the BBC, to see whether it could have put up the broadcasting facilities more cheaply? There are many organisations at home and abroad that can provide the technical facilities that the Bill is designed to finance. What is the costing basis for choosing the IBA?
I share the concern of other hon. Members about the method of repayment being imprecise. I hope that the IBA will be the end user of the facilities. But, if not, it is not written into the Bill that the end user will work to a repayment formula over a specific period. If that is not agreed, we are putting at risk the amount of finance that the IBA might be able to make available for the programming of the fourth channel. That money will be absorbed by the continued borrowing from or repayments to the Government.
The Government have not given a specific assurance within the Bill on repayment to the IBA of costs incurred should the House decide eventually against a fourth channel. The Home Secretary may assure us that a future Government will repay, but that assurance should be written into the Bill, and that should be considered in Committee.
I have two questions on the technicalities of the facilities. Like the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), I also hope that the transmission facilities will be built on a basis which will allow new regions to be drawn or subsections of regions to be identified. I hope that the facilities which the IBA will build with the money that we are voting tonight will not draw too circumscribed a regional delineation for some future date. We are all aware that the Government have a slow pregnancy for the broadcasting future. Whether they will give birth in this Parliament, we do not know, but if that question of the future of broadcasting in this country is to be left in the air it will be sad to see too precise lines drawn on the facilities.
What estimates has the Minister obtained from the IBA about the growth of cable television? Inevitably, that could have a direct influence on the establishment of the facilities for which we are voting money today. It could be argued hypothetically that if cable television were to grow as fast as some people think it

will these facilities would not be needed. The same projections could be applied to satellite broadcasting.
On the question of timing, like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) I welcome this "little snowdrop Bill" as he described it, but if the Government had made up their mind and carried through the House plans for the future of broadcasting the Bill would not have been necessary. Perhaps this is another sad example of the Government shilly-shallying.
Many hon. Members have pointed out that there are other matters of importance which the House has yet to decide, such as the future of the BBC and the nature of TV4. We are voting these moneys today without having the opportunity to debate what these facilities will be used for. In this Bill the Government have, however, shown an ability to look to the future and plan ahead. It is all the sadder that they seem to be incapable of looking to the future of other broadcasting media, such as radio. It is frustrating that they have not given the go-ahead for 90 local radio stations rather than nine.
When will we see the Government's plans for submission to the world conference on broadcasting this autumn? Unless we know them and have an opportunity to debate them, any debate on any broadcasting matter is nonsense.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. George Reid: I want to swim a little against the tide of this debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken the view today that the sooner the fourth channel is set up the better. We have heard speeches from the Opposition Benches in support of ITV2 and from the Government Benches in support of the OBA. I suggest that what we need at this time is not more broadcasting, but better quality broadcasting. In the country's present parlous financial situation, if we rush into ITV2 we shall see a falling-off in the quality of British broadcasting. After all, British broadcasting is one of the few things that these nations which share these islands do well together.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), in describing this "little snowdrop Bill", produced an advertising man's dream. He gave us a prospectus that


we have seen made out so many times before in licence applications—more culture, more art, more opera, more of this or that. But so often in the past we have found that that dream has faded quickly. In my view, if ITV2 were set up it would lead to great scheduling pressure on the BBC and its quality would drop off as well.
Certainly the OBA has my support. I share the disappointment of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that all we have today is a little Bill standing on its own. I would have preferred the Labour Party to have the courage of its convictions and put forward a general plan for British broadcasting, but, as the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) said, so often the trouble with the Labour Party is that its radicalism fades with the opportunity.
I wish to speak specifically about two aspects of quality. The first concerns the remote areas of the United Kingdom and the second concerns the ITV and BBC channels that now exist.
Those of us who come from more remote parts of these islands are bound to take the view that the need for broadcasting is almost in inverse proportion to population size. In North Wales and the islands of Scotland people can be cut off for weeks on end and their only form of entertainment, relaxation, information and contact with the outside world is through the box. Yet, it is a sad fact of life that in these very areas people are paying the same licence fee to the BBC as everyone else, but many of them receive only BBC1. That is manifestly unfair, and there is a case for dropping the licence fee or reducing it in these areas.
If we are talking today about £28 million being used to engineer a fourth channel, I would like some guarantees from the Home Office about the amount of money that will be spent on remote communities. Many of these communities are small—they have only 400 or 500 people—but the people there should have some guarantee that they will get more than one channel when the rest of the country has three or four.
Throughout the debate we have heard about the impact of regionalism in the East Midlands. That is also true in the distinctive nations of Scotland and Wales. This is not a day for too many referendum

stories, but certainly in part of the constituency of the Leader of the Liberal Party—Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles—I was astonished last week to find that people could not get a referendum report from a Scottish station. They had to take it from an English station, and naturally all they got was peripheral news. The effect of that is to deny people their Scottishness. That situation obtains as well in parts of Ayrshire where signals are received not from Scottish stations but from Northern Ireland. Those people have a diet of Ulster news, and that can have serious repercussions in parts of West Scotland. I believe that money should be spent in these areas to give everyone the same basic three services before we start thinking about a fourth.
Let me defend BBC Scotland, because I think that it has created a national service. Certainly, Grampian Television has. Perhaps more could have been done with STV in extending the signal into the West Highlands. I certainly do not want to see the fat cats of commercial television getting fatter, on a large advertising and population basis, and not living up to the responsibility of providing a decent service to the peripheral areas.
The hon. Member for Merioneth spoke about the Welsh language. I congratulate him and share his hopes and ambitions. It is my belief that any violence done to a language by its negation is a violence done to the people and their very identity. If English Members do not understand that, they do not understand the case for Welsh broadcasting. I welcome the Home Secretary's statement that the first engineering done by the IBA will be in North Wales.
I turn to the Gaelic-speaking areas of Scotland. I admit that the numbers are very much smaller—only about 80,000. But there is still the same basic need to provide these people with a radio and television service in their own language, and certainly to provide a service for children. I am sorry that Scotland is a very poor second or third cousin to Wales in terms of providing Gaelic broadcasting services. BBC Scotland has promised a tiny radio station for Stornoway. I suspect that the capital costs will be in the region of £40,000 to £50,000—a minuscule sum. The station will provide a daily Gaelic news. It has been promised, but I am not sure when it will materialise.


That is the sort of priority for a bilingual area which should come before the extention of four channels to the large metropolitan areas.
It is significant that on devolution day the ex-controller of BBC Scotland, Alastair Hetherington, who contributed so much to the Assembly debate, read the weather on Radio Highland—he is responsible for Gaelic broadcasting there. Perhaps that is a symptom of what happens to media devolutionists—they are exiled to a "Scots Siberia". However, in all seriousness, there is a case for a bigger helping hand to Gaelic broadcasting.

Mr. Rathbone: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the Home Office were prepared to offer the opportunity to independent radio to provide the sort of service to which he has referred, that service could be provided quickly, at no cost to the taxpayer and without drawing on the funds provided for in the Bill?

Mr. Reid: That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the linguistic case. Gaelic-speaking people are scattered throughout a large area; they do not shop in the same way as others—sometimes there is no shop for them. Therefore, there is no overriding need for an advertiser to fund commercial radio. It would not be possible in the West Highlands of Scotland. If it is done at all, it must be done with Treasury aid or a hypothecation of revenues from elsewhere in the ITV system.

Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that the notion of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that there is no cost involved in commercial television or radio is not true? The cost might be less obvious, but it is a cost in the price of goods and services that are advertised.

Mr. Reid: I accept that. The housewife pays at the end of the day. We all pay—through the tins of food that we buy for our cats, dogs, families and ourselves.
However, I should like to make a few brief points specifically in relation to Scots broadcasting. The hon. Member for Aldershot made great play of how ITV2 would strengthen broadcasting from the regions. He said that there would be a

large regional input to ITV2. We covered this ground when we discussed and allowed the extension of television hours. The big five networks had to take something for the "Tom Tiddlers" around the fringes, so there were "tartan ceilidhs" in the middle of the afternoon from Scotland and soap operas for elsewhere in the country.
Soon after I moved from Granada to STV, we sold a small Scottish soap opera to ATV. The only words of the noble Lord when he bought the series were "It is not in Gaelic, is it?" That showed no understanding. In other words, Scotland had to have something slotted into the network, but there was no commitment to the quality of that "peripheral" from the big boys. It was simply more pabulum for the masses. I suspect that that would also be the case with ITV2.
The terrain of Scotland is difficult for the broadcaster. Signals do not run in the same way as mountains, lochs and valleys. The population and the advertising base are small and, therefore, it is difficult to have a Scottish networking company at the moment. The population falls 2 million short of that covered by Yorkshire Television. The controller therefore has the difficult job of trying to programme across the board, to be all things to all men and to satisfy every specific interest group, be it Gaeldom, the Scots Kirk, the Roman Catholic Church, football and so on. In that way, everything is done poorly. I have made too many films in places such as Shetland, once with Granada and twice with STV, not to know the truth of that. With the regional company, cash and facility limits meant that filming took place when the fog cut down visibility to a few feet. With the large networking companies, filming takes place when the fog lifts.
In order to strengthen the regional companies in Scotland, it is necessary to have one Scottish networking company. I do not suggest the takeover of Grampian by STV but, perhaps, a federal and new management structure. That would strengthen the creativity and from that stronger base there could be a greater contribution to the existing network. That is Labour policy too.
If ITV2 were filled with regional contributions, there would be more of the same type of programme, more repeats


and fillers, and more strain would be placed on those working in the provincial centres.
There is a delicate balance at the moment between BBC and ITV. The programme scheduler is probably more important than the programme maker. ITV delicately balances its programmes to draw audiences away from BBC1, and vice versa. However, we do have a high standard of broadcasting because that game cannot be played by ITV against both BBC channels. There is a unique 50–50 viewing mix in the United Kingdom between one ITV channel and the two BBC channels.
If, in the fullness of time, it is a question of taking a decision, my money would go on the OBA.
I believe that it is right that we should have a new channel run by a publisher and not by a programme maker. That channel should be opened to the people, and the independent programme maker, in terms of access programmes from housing estates, from co-operatives and from the factory floor. There should be soap operas about a shop steward—rather than about attractive, middle-class people from Hampstead.
That should be the way ahead for the future. At the moment we should consider whether we need not more broadcasting in quantity but more brodcasting in quality.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: Most speakers in the debate have vested interests of one kind of another which they have declared. Some hon. Members run advertising agencies, some own stations and some have made films. In order to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) from getting restive, let me say that he falls, with a few of us, into the lilywhite category—those who have some knowledge, but are mainly concerned, as viewers, that we should get programmes of good quality.
I am a member of the Select Committee that deals with nationalised industries and, therefore, the IBA. I was brought up as a primitive Methodist and I am reminded of the Methodist practice that when one spoke, one should have a text. I do not often use that maxim. However, from what I have heard of the debate so

far, there is a text that would suit it very well, because on all the various stances the debate might be summed up as "Our discontent comes by comparison. Were better states unseen, each man would like his own".
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley questioned whether there should be solely commercial vested interests or non-commercial services. That is a whole area which is yet to be discussed.
I sat up in my seat when I heard the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) say "Cable television and satellites". However, he swiftly left the topic. I should like to return to it. The Bill is about the provision of transmitting equipment for new television broadcasting. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the sectional interest—the Welsh and Gaelic languages. He said that broadcasting is hindered by the mountains and terrain of some regions. If satellites are launched and the transmitters are in outer space, half the world can be covered. Then Welsh and Gaelic could be received in Patagonia.
In earlier days, Private Bills brought in such things as the advent of the railways. I have said before that Brunei spent half his time in the House arguing. We have heard from hon. Members with vested interests, but I should like to have heard from the engineers. An engineer could explain to the House the widening boundaries that are just around the corner or, in some cases, coming into existence. We need the flair for realising the potential, but the amount of equipment that can be provided cannot exceed the budget of £18 million.
We have not even examined the potential of cable television, yet it is already being superseded. It is feared in the United States that people will buy their own dishes—to focus on a signal—and nobody will know that they have them. Therefore, they will receive free transmissions. Unless all dishes are to be registered, the mind boggles at that possibility. But it is being discussed. We see major sporting events, such as the Olympic Games, being broadcast by satellite. The signal is beamed from the satellite to a central point and on to transmitters all over the country.
I am told that it is technically feasible for everyone to have his own dish, to


point it at the satellite and to choose the programmes that he wishes to see. That equipment is being developed. Hon. Members may smile, but those who look back on the debate in 10 or 15 years' time may find that much of what I am forecasting will be in existence.
I hope that our engineers will not be unduly constrained. Many important decisions about which areas were to be served by which channels were decided solely because there was a hill in a particular area. The area served was the area that the signal could reach—regardless of whether the programmes were of interest to the communities involved. That is why my colleagues in the East Midlands around Nottingham are so concerned about how the fourth channel will operate. I hope that the dishes for the new channel will not necessarily be attached to existing towers. Certainly, existing towers should be used if they serve a need, but I hope that there will be more versatility.
Cine and audio recording equipment is now fairly cheap and is certainly within the reach of groups of individuals who wish to produce their own films. A cultural group in, for example, Scunthorpe may wish to produce a film and, even if the people of Grimsby do not wish to see it, it would be possible to show it in Scunthorpe. These are all potential developments which the House needs to consider.
In all our debates on broadcasting, and I have listened to many, we have arguments about Conservative and Socialist ideology. Our political views are important, but it is vital that all hon. Members should realise that unless we are careful the technological development of the medium may end up dictating events to us.
That has already happened in Canada. The Canadians passed legislation imposing constraints on what could be broadcast on television. They were attempting to encourage the arts and so on in their country in an attempt to establish a national identity. Those constraints have been swept away by the United States with its great wealth. The Canadians made the technical mistake of not taking into account the potential of cable television. Cable systems took a large part

of the Canadian audience and the American television stations put transmitters on the border so that the Canadians could receive their programmes.
We are playing for bigger stakes. We are entering the age of the satellite, and viewers will be able to receive many more channels. Soon it will not be a case of having to watch only BBC, ITV or any other programme originating in this country. It will be technically possible to see a plethora of what the world has to offer and to tune into the channels that suit our needs best. I hope that that sort of consideration will be borne in mind.
The Bill is a small measure and involves only £18 million of expenditure, much of it for the duplication, rightly or wrongly, of existing services. However, there is a boundary to the debate that we have not yet crossed. My language has been extravagant and I may have presented my vision of the future in a way that some hon. Members consider absurd, but if those who read the report of our debate and the few hon. Members who are here to listen to it feel that I have made valid points—even though they may not go all the way with me—I hope that I have done a service to the House and to those who will study our debate.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Michael Morris: I am sure that all hon. Members would echo what the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) said about the danger of the strength of the television medium dictating events.
I shall be brief. I wish to address myself to one point, namely, that, on the supposition that the fourth channel is to be a commercial channel, certain dimensions should be spelt out. I am inevitably addressing myself as much to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) as to the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to the debate.
I can think of nothing worse than the fourth channel going to an existing contractor. That idea is abhorrent to me. I have declared an interest as the director of two advertising agencies, and I speak as a consumer because my job is to advise the advertisers who put their trust in the skills of my companies on how to spend their resources.
I believe in free competition, and we do not have any degree of competition in television. The television companies are in a monopoly position. They have ransomed the advertisers, particularly in the past two or three years, to the detriment of advertising, and particularly to the detriment of small companies, those that are starting up and new products that are being launched. They have much to answer for, and I do not support the idea of the fourth channel going to any of the existing ITV companies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot should also bear in mind that our economy is not yet so bankrupt that there is no money available in the market to finance new contractors. There is plenty of money available for consortia to be set up on a competitive basis to take up new franchises. I join the pleas of my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), the hon. Members for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and others that we should not fall into the trap of having existing boundaries as the boundaries for ITV2.
I have reservations about the East Midlands station as conceived by hon. Members representing Nottingham. My concept is founded on a South Midlands basis, as there is a greater affinity between Northampton, Bedfordshire and the northern regions of Buckinghamshire than there is between the far areas of Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire. Let us ask those in authority to look at the varying possibilities of boundaries. We now have new Euro-constituencies. Northamptonshire is basically linked with Buckinghamshire. Perhaps that area should be looked at. There are people who look to the various registrar-generals' regions, marketing regions and Euro-regions. However, the message is that we do not wish to be tied to the boundaries that now exist.
If we are thinking of ITV2 outside the existing companies, we should think about the role of the charities and some of the minority interests of a commercial nature. Here I perhaps speak with greater knowledge. We do this with the boundaries of housing and planning policy. We say to certain local authorities and dictate to people that there should be low-cost housing in a region, a certain density in one area and a certain density in another. There is nothing

to prevent Parliament or the IBA from saying to a commercial organisation "We expect you, within the time dimensions available, to make time available for charities and religious interests. You must alter the rate per second or per half minute for advertising." That is not a difficult calculation. It is simple and straightforward.
We must remember that the present ITV contractors have a vested interest in ITV2. They have held the existing commercial interests to ransom. We shall do a great disservice to competition policy, to consumer durable goods and to service interests if we adopt the "attractive" proposition which the existing companies are putting forward. I warn my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot that, inviting as it appears, we should not bite on this proposition. We should look at it cautiously. Engineering does not help the situation. I ask my hon. Friend and the Government to ensure that we do not bite on this attractive cherry.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Magee: It is a matter of great regret and, I am tempted to say, a disgrace that although it is two years since the Annan report findings were published we should get this tiddler of a Bill all by itself instead of its being part of a much larger Bill.
It is no good anyone trying to say in its defence that the engineering must be done before the fourth channel is set up. It will take very much longer to get a body, whose task is to produce and transmit programmes, going from scratch than it will to do the engineering. And it is high time that the House had before it the legislation to set that body up.
As a result of this two-year delay we are now in a situation where the future of television may be determined by the accidental timing of a general election. There has to be an election some time in the next eight months. The Conservative Party is publicly committed to giving the fourth channel to ITV. It is a logical possibility that the Conservative Party might win the next general election—that is acknowledged even by Government supporters. However, I do not think that a reasonable person would maintain that any perceptible section of the public would cast its votes at the next election in accordance with the


differing television policies of the two main parties—still less their differing policies on the allocation of the fourth channel. So although the future of television will go one way or the other, the decision will not have been made on the merits of the case.
I was especially disappointed that the Home Secretary, in opening the debate, went out of his way to say twice that this Bill in no way pre-empted the decision about the fourth channel and did not ensure that the fourth channel would go to an Open Broadcasting Authority. We should have before us a Bill that does ensure that.
The issue about the fourth channel is not whether the independent television companies should have access to it. If an Open Broadcasting Authority were set up in accordance with the Annan recommendations, everyone who knows anything about the television scene would agree that the great bulk of the programmes to be shown on such a channel would be almost bound to originate with the independent programme-making companies. They form the largest pool of programme-making talent, experience and facilities that exist outside the BBC, which already has its own two channels. So they will have their outlet anyway. What is at issue is whether the fourth channel shall also be available to programme makers other than the independent television companies and, a related issue, whether that channel shall be controlled by those companies.
I am strongly of the opinion that the Annan recommendation was right and that the fourth channel should not be controlled by the commercial companies although the commercial companies should have access to it. I therefore call upon the Government to bring forward as soon as possible legislation embodying those recommendations.
There may, as I say, be seven or eight months before a general election. They are likely to be months in which the Government will almost be looking for legislation to put before the House—certainly we do not have a log jam of urgent Bills awaiting consideration. After two years of delay despite the Government's commitment to Annan, and given the fact that the next election could set the whole development of television on

a wrong path, I should like to see the Government bring in legislation based on Annan and get it passed before the next general election. They have the time.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: May I apologise? I hope that hon. Members will not all cheer at once, but I am losing my voice.
There can be no question that the Independent Broadcasting Authority is inefficient. There may be some question whether it is actually, in the strict sense of the word, corrupt.
May I prove the point about its inefficiency? The current annual report and accounts of the Authority cover the years 1976–77. The document, which has an introduction by the chairman, was submitted to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and her letter doing so is dated 7 March 1978. Those accounts are for the period to 31 March 1977.
I used to work for a multinational company whose instructions to its subsidiaries were that they should submit their accounts within one month to the holding company. The holding company consolidated those accounts within one further month. They were audited, dealt with and published within three months from the year end. It will be apparent that the IBA finds this impossible. It takes nearly 12 months for the IBA to do the same thing.
The interesting point is that today is 6 March. If the IBA does exactly the same thing for last year's accounts, we shall get those accounts tomorrow, the day after this Second Reading debate. I have reason to believe that that is exactly what will occur, and that is why I make a suggestion of corruption. I cannot conceive that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—I am sure that she was not aware of the circumstances—will wish to have the Second Reading of this Bill before we, as a House of Commons, are aware of the accounts of that Authority for the year long past—12 months past.
If we look at the last published accounts, we find a fascinating and interesting story. On one revenue account, television, there is a profit of £240,000 and on another there is a deficit of £355,000—a net deficit of £115,000. I am sorry to go back two years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, as I am sure you


realise, if the accounts are only to be published tomorrow, it is not easy to deal with the current position. This is a clear illustration of inefficiency.
Television and radio, the media of communication, are not usually regarded as the least profitable enterprises in the United Kingdom. They are not usually regarded as methods of losing money. Farmers have been known to go bankrupt, as have builders but not many television or radio companies go bankrupt. But the Independent Broadcasting Authority manages, according to its last published revenue accounts—I do not know what the accounts will show to-morrow—to prove that it is not making money. In effect, it is subsidising private companies in radio and television which are, of course, making a profit and declaring dividends. I do not think that the average taxpayer set up the Authority in order to subsidise private enterprise in that way.
I am all in favour of both public service and private enterprise commercial channels, but I am not in favour of the taxpayer subsidising the commercial channel when, after all, that channel should be capable of making money for itself. However, we shall not know the latest position until after the debate, unless my hon. Friend, as I hope she will, takes the point and seeks at 7 p.m. to defer the debate to a date after the IBA has shown itself capable of publishing accounts that should have been available a long time ago.
The IBA is yet another quango that is frightened of using the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit its accounts. It uses a private firm—Coopers and Lybrand. It is a very efficient firm, so efficient that it qualifies the accounts of the IBA, remarking on the use of historic costs. We all know of the arguments that various nationalised industries have been having with the Treasury. Some of them have wished to depreciate their assets, allowing for inflation; some of them have not. The loss in the case of the IBA, to which I have been referring, occurs even in spite of the fact that it chooses only the lowest method of depreciation and does not use any method of depreciation that allows for inflation.
My hon. Friends and some Opposition Members have already made the point

that in the East Midlands we have not a separate television service. Every county council and nearly all the district councils in the area have supported their Members of Parliament in asking for this. We hope that before this Bill is passed, if possible, the Independent Broadcasting Authority, despite its own inefficiencies, will remedy at least one of them by providing a separate television service to the East Midlands, which is one of the economic planning regions of this country.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Critchley: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the House has been united this afternoon by a feeling that the cart has been put before the horse. Clearly, in an ideal world, we should have decided long ago what should occupy the fourth channel, before starting on the engineering works, but since when has politics been a rational activity?
I have a word of warning for the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I understand on good authority that Lord Grade is considering making a film of his life. If the hon. Member wishes to succeed where "Jesus of Nazareth" failed, he must be more circumspect in his criticisms of ATV.
It is, I believe, basically a matter for the IBA and not for this House to decide how the franchises within television should be allocated. There are three posibilities. First, a new region might be carved out of the Midlands. Secondly, we could stay as we are. Thirdly, an opt-out system, which would allow ATV to broadcast some programmes in the East Midlands for the East Midlands only, might be a solution to the dilemma. Perhaps there is enough money in the kitty, in terms of the Bill, to allow some engineering work to begin, to enable such an opt-out system to work.
I understand that ATV has just opened a film studio in Nottingham. It has been delayed by a six-month long industrial dispute. I understand that it will be used for film, and film only.

Mr. English: It is described as a studio. Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me, as a representative of the city, that it is in fact an office, described as a studio, with no electronics in it?

Mr. Critchley: The hon. Member will no doubt be able to argue that point with


ATV. I have not visited that establishment, therefore I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any more help.
Concerning the matter of the Welsh broadcasts, here again I am in great difficulty. There are not many Welsh members of the Conservative Party. I represent a Hampshire seat, but I am a Shropshire lad. Nevertheless, I understand that under the ITV2 proposals there would be an annually reviewed grant from all the programme companies, which would be used to pay for independently produced programmes, including those in the Welsh language. This would presumably mean that a relatively small proportion of the fourth channel would be devoted to Welsh language broadcasts. How large a proportion it would be I am not qualified to say, and I hesitate at this late hour to get into that argument.
We welcome this mini-Bill. It will enable the next Government to introduce ITV2 and, by so doing, to enrich the broadcasting in this country.

6.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): At times during the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have had a slight sense of dèjá vu when I have heard the Annan speeches from the faithful, repeated sometimes for the third time, although the jokes have varied slightly. We have had the opportunity of hearing the Opposition's policy, albeit in one sentence, for a Welsh language television service. That was a great event, and we should like to hear more about it in the future.
My right hon. Friend said quite clearly that the Bill has limited objectives, but nevertheless extremely important, necessary and urgent objectives. The first of these is to enable the Independent Broadcasting Authority to engineer the fourth channel throughout the United Kingdom. This is not an exploratory or preparatory exercise, as the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said. It is an essential exercise. It is essential work, irrespective of whatever authority eventually provides and supervises the programmes transmitted on the fourth channel.
The concern felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) may not have had as much basis as he

believed because, whatever happens in the future, the engineering work is essential. The Bill is concerned only—I repeat only—with the engineering and its associated finance. It leaves all the future options entirely open.

Mr. English: Why?

Dr. Summerskill: Because the engineering—

Mr. Magee: Does not my hon. Friend understand that it is the very fact that she is making this point and stressing it that is causing us disquiet? It is the fact that the Government are proceeding as if future options are and should remain open instead of pursuing their declared policies that worries us.

Dr. Summerskill: I appreciate that. It is urgent, because the second objective, which we expect to be achieved by authorising the engineering work to commence without delay, is to enable the new Welsh language television service to come into operation on the fourth channel in Wales in the autumn of 1982, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about six times and as I shall be saying a few more times to impress it on the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). That is one important reason.
I realise that there is concern among several hon. Members about major legislation. They have referred to the legislation which will be necessary to implement the Government's proposals in the White Paper. I wish to make absolutely clear that it is the Government's firm intention to proceed with those proposals. I accept that there is a problem about parliamentary time, but we are in no way going back on our proposals, and we shall inform the House of our intentions. In this connection, as I indicated on 29 January, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends in the near future to apply for a supplemental Royal charter to extend the life of the BBC.
In the short time available I should like to deal with a few specific matters. As the hon. Member for Isle of Ely has left the Chamber, I will reply to the same point raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid). The engineering of the fourth channel will not interrupt the programme for the engineering of the existing channels. The Government's main concern


is that the UHF coverage of the existing services should be extended to the whole country as soon as practicable. The broadcasting authorities are concentrating on bringing UHF television as quickly as possible to all communities down to a population of about 500. This programme could not be further accelerated even if the fourth channel were not engineered.
The hon. Member for Merioneth referred to Welsh programmes. In the report of the working party on the Welsh television fourth channel project the BBC indicated that it might be able to provide about two and a half hours extra a week for about nine months of the year, and HTV Wales envisaged about one and a half hours a week extra. It is for the broadcasting organisations to determine how far they will be able to realise these aims but, as my right hon. Friend said, both the BBC and HTV Wales have indicated their intention of providing more Welsh language programmes. The Bill will bring in the programmes in the autumn of 1982 with the intention of introducing a Welsh language service of about 20 hours a week covering 90 per cent. of the population of Wales. I hope that the hon. Member for Merioneth will recognise that the steps the Government are taking in the Bill provide ample assurance of their firm commitment to the Welsh language television project.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) asked many questions, several of which I will deal with. If I leave any out perhaps he will write to me. The Welsh Language Television Council will consist of representatives of the broadcasting organisations—OBA, BBC and IBA—and Welsh independent television contractors. It will not be a representative body. The estimated cost of £28 million, as my right hon. Friend said, is at 1978–79 prices. We did not think it would be right to seek from the House greater financial provision at this stage than can be properly estimated at the moment.
The IBA is skilled in engineering matters and I have confidence in its estimates. The Annan committee recommended unanimously, and the Government agreed, that the IBA is the appropriate authority to undertake the engineering of the fourth channel. The world administrative radio conference will establish the

framework for all uses of the frequency spectrum for perhaps the next 20 years. The United Kingdom's proposals are not yet finalised, but they will provide all the flexibility that the matters which we are discussing today will require.
Several questions have been asked about the content of the fourth channel. We believe that a unique opportunity will be missed if that channel is not used to widen the choice available to viewers and to explore new dimensions in broadcasting. The OBA proposals are ambitious, but we believe that they are workable. This belief has been confirmed by the comments we have received on the White Paper, in particular from producers and advertisers. We have said that the fourth channel should be used for programmes that say something new in new ways. It will be for the OBA, when it is set up, to find out what is available and what can be produced once the opportunity is there. It has become clear that there are a good number of experienced people outside the existing broadcasting organisations who are looking forward to the opportunity of producing programmes for the new service.
Many hon. Members referred to the East Midlands. Although it is not strictly connected with the Bill, there seems to be concern about this. The area is at present part of the larger Midlands franchise area serviced by the ATV company based in Birmingham. The responsibility for determining the franchise areas and for awarding the contracts for the provision of television programmes rests with the IBA. The IBA issued a statement last month about its intentions as to the granting of television contracts from 1982 onwards. The arrangements involve a substantial measure of public participation designed to help the Authority to decide which applicants for contracts, whether existing programme companies or new groups, should be offered franchises. I am sure that the Authority will take notice of what has been said in this debate. It will be holding public meetings and hearings, and individuals and representatives of organisations will have an opportunity to submit written comments to it.
The present Midlands area is a large one—indeed, it has the largest potential audience of any of the ITV companies outside London. The proposal to remove


from this area the East Midlands area would involve hiving off Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, and perhaps also the reallocation of Lincolnshire from the franchise areas served by Yorkshire Television and Anglia Television. Such a group would include upwards of the 3 million people, so the adjustment of franchise areas is not straightforward and must receive the most careful consideration before decisions can be taken. I am sure that the House will recognise that in reviewing its franchise arrangements the IBA must ensure the overall financial and technical viability of ITV.

Mr. English: It is making a loss already. Why should it not go on making a loss?

Dr. Summerskill: I conclude by stressing that the Bill is necessary to set up the engineering system for the fourth channel, and it is urgent for the purpose of introducing a Welsh language service on that channel. I realise the impatience of hon. Members concerning further legislation, but it is essential to give the Bill a Second Reading today.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 25.

Division No. 84]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Magee, Bryan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Arnold, Tom
Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Ashton, Joe
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mather, Carol


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Freud, Clement
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Bates, Alf
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Molloy, William


Bean, R. E.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Monro, Hector


Beith, A. J.
George, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Bendall, Vivian
Golding, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Biffen, John
Gould, Bryan
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gourlay, Harry
Morton, George


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Blaker, Peter
Grant, John (Islington C)
Noble, Mike


Boardman, H.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Oakes, Gordon


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hannant, John
Ovenden, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.
Page, John (Harrow West)


Brotherton, Michael
Hooley, Frank
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hordern, Peter
Pardoe, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Park, George


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Parker, John


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parkinson, Cecil


Cartwright, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest


Cohen, Stanley
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Radice, Giles


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rathbone, Tim


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cowans, Harry
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Reid, George


Craigen, Jim(Maryhill)
Jessel, Toby
Rhodes James, R.


Critchley, Julian
John, Brynmor
Rifkind, Malcolm


Crouch, David
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kerr, Russell
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Dewar, Donald
Lawrence, Ivan
Sandelson, Neville


Dolg, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred


Dunn, James A.
McCartney, Hugh
Sims, Roger


Dunnett, Jack
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dykes, Hugh
McElhone, Frank
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Eadie, Alex
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Snape, Peter


Ellis, John (Brig &amp; Scun)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, John (Newton)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Eyre, Reginald
McNalr-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)




Stoddart, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stott, Roger
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wigley, Dafydd


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Tapsell, Peter
Warren, Kenneth
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Watkins, David
Woodall, Alec


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Weatherill, Bernard
Woof Robert


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Weetch, Ken
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thompson, George
Wellbeloved, James
Younger, Hon George


Tilley,John
Wells, John



Tinn, James
Welsh, Andrew
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Urwin, T. W.
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Waddington, David
White, James (Pollok)
Mr. Thomas Cox.




NOES


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Bidwell, Sydney
Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Grocott, Bruce
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Miss Jo
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Litterick, Tom
Selby, Harry
Mr. Michael English.


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. John Evans.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The Question is, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, "No".

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Clear the Lobby.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Excluding Ministers and Whips and members of the Shadow Cabinet, only three hon. Members out of 44 in the East Midlands voted for the Bill, out of 203 hon. Members who did so. To put it on the Floor of the House at this stage—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Be that as it may, it is not a matter for the Chair and in any event we are on a Division. The Question is, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it.

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I must apologise to the House for moving the motion with a faintly piratical appearance. In the heady days of the recess I came into collision with a tree which did damage to me. In the interests of the tree I should say that it acted in self-defence after I had done damage to it, and in the interests of part II of the Bill I should say that I was not in a car at the time it occurred.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Was the tree in Epping Forest?

Mr. Brooke: All hon. Members have received copies of the statement on behalf of the promoters in support of this Second Reading, but in case any hon. Member has not brought his statement with him I shall take the liberty of reminding the House of the principal purposes of the Bill, which is promoted by the Corporation of London in my constituency.
The first purpose is
 to authorise the Corporation as Conservators of Epping Forest to grant to the Secretary of State for Transport the lands, and rights in lands, he requires for the construction of a part of the M25 London Orbital Motorway authorised under the Highways Acts 1959 to 1971;
and, secondly,
 to provide for the moving of Billingsgate Market from its present site at Lower Thames Street in the City to a new site at North Quay, West India and Millwall Docks, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
There are ancillary clauses in Part IV entitled "Miscellaneous and General", to which I shall refer separately.
With a Bill of this sort the normal procedure would be, in the classic manner of a storyteller, to begin at the beginning and go on to the end, but with the indulgence of the House I propose to modify that procedure. I remember being taught in my youth that the difference between the words "perverse" and "preposterous" went back to their Latin origins. I shall certainly be perverse, but

I shall also be preposterous in taking the end first and coming back to the beginning.
I do so because the majority of the interest in this Bill—both inside the House and outside—relates to part II, which is concerned with Epping Forest. It would seem to me for the convenience of the House if I take that part last so that it is fresh in the minds of hon. Members when we get down to the debate.
Let me first deal with parts III and IV. On part III, I cannot improve upon the language used by the promoters of the Bill, who said in their statement:
 For many years the Corporation have been considering the reaccommodation of Billingsgate Market to provide the facilities now required for this important fish market and to avoid the present necessity for the use of roads and lanes adjoining the existing market as parking and trading areas. This is necessitated both by the age and state of the present Market buildings and by the need for the continuation of the main southern traffic route along the line of Lower and Upper Thames Street. Plans for the reaccommodation of the Market on its present site, for which powers were conferred by the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1973, have proved impracticable on grounds of cost but an acceptable site is now available at the West India Dock in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. In agreement with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and the traders in the Market the Corporation accordingly now seek powers in Part III of the Bill to move the Market to this new site.
Provision is included in Part III of the Bill for the reaccommodation of existing Market traders at the new site and for making available facilities for the licensed porters employed at the existing Market. The Bill also provides for the constitution of a new Billingsgate Market Consultative Advisory Committee, including representatives of the traders and workers in the Market.
It might be helpful if I add a word or two of my own. First, the move of Billingsgate market is the outcome of long negotiations with the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the London borough of Tower Hamlets and the trade. It is welcomed as a useful contribution to the rehabilitation of dockland.
Secondly, the reference to the trade that I have just made implies, and indeed embraces, full consultation not only with the traders but with the market porters, who are in agreement with the move.
Thirdly, I should like to scotch a red herring—if I may be allowed that phrase—relating to archaeology. The Council


for British Archaeology got wind of the Bill, but if I may draw on the atmosphere of Billingsgate, whose lost smell will be my one regret about these clauses—since the maritime smell that brought the sea right into the heart of the City is to disappear in due course as a result of the Bill—the Billingsgate smell interfered with the archaeologists' scent. They wrote to several hon. Members before they reached the hon. Member who was perhaps closest to the Bill. Their fears have been entirely allayed on learning that the land and property at Billingsgate is not the subject of a separate commercial development.
Of course, the City has an outstanding reputation in relation to archaeology. Here I must declare an interest, not as an archaeologist but as an ancient historian very much manqué. The City maintains the largest field archaeology unit in the country, attached to the Museum of London, and it attaches great importance to interpreting the planning laws to allow maximum archaeological investigation of any site uncovered in the course of development. The irony of the Council for British Archaeology's apprehensions about the Bill, which were expressed to several Members, is that unless the measure is passed Billingsgate, which it rightly says is an important and rich archaeological site, will not be uncovered at all.
Reference to the archaeological unit of the Museum of London brings me happily to part IV of the Bill, because clause 18 relates to admission charges to the Museum of London. Again, I quote from a statement by the promoters:
 The Bill includes in Part IV miscellaneous provisions to confer on the Board of Governors of the Museum of London powers to make charges for admission similar to those available at other public museums; to enable the Corporation to develop as a place of public resort the parts of Tower Bridge (including the existing high level footbridges) which are not required for highway purposes; provision for the letting of stalls in Spitalfields Market; and an increase of the maximum penalties for offences in streets and other thoroughfares under section 35 of the City of London Police Act 1839.
There may be some unhappiness in certain parts of the House about clause 18 relating to museum charges. I shall not make a rod for my own back by seeking to suggest what that unhappiness might be, but let me say at this juncture that the board of governors has already

recorded that there is no intention to use this power other than for special occasions, as other national museums do from time to time.
The provision in clause 19 relating to Tower bridge is supported by the London tourist bord and will provide a first-class attraction for tourists, while the remaining miscellaneous provisions are designed solely to bring the legislation concerned up to date.
That brings me to part II of the Bill, relating to Epping Forest. Here I shall err on the side of fullness so that the subject may be adequately ventilated.
Epping Forest, which is the remnant of the ancient Royal Forest of Waltham, comprises about nine square miles of diversified woodland and open land, extending from Wanstead Flats in the south to Epping in the north. It is vested in the Corporation of London as the conservator of Epping Forest under the Epping Forest Act 1878 and is regulated and managed by it through the Epping Forest and open spaces committee, which includes four verderers elected by the commoners of the forest.
Part II of the Bill is required to enable the Corporation to make available to the Secretary of State for Transport the interests which he requires in some 14½ acres of land at the northern end of the forest for the construction of the length of the M25 motorway between the A10 and the M11 and so to give effect to terms now agreed with the Department for the grant of those interests in forest land. In the view of the Corporation, these terms and the manner of construction of that part of the motorway affecting the forest now intended by the Departmen are as advantageous to forest interests as could reasonably be expected.
Because some of the opposition, or potential opposition, to the Bill is in pursuit of conservationist interests, it may be to the advantage of the House if I were to sketch some of the historical background which gave rise to the City of London becoming responsible for Epping Forest in a parliamentary saga of a century ago, with what have been highly beneficial conservationist consequences.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century there were, as now, about 6,000 acres of land in Epping Forest. By 1870,


however, there remained only some 3,000 acres as the result of enclosures, some of them illegal, of the open waste. By that time the importance of preserving as much as possible of the forest as an open space close to the expanding metropolis of London became apparent, and prevention of encroachment on the forest became the subject of much controversy.
In February 1870 a resolution was passed in the Commons praying that steps should be taken to preserve Epping Forest as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. In the same Session a Bill was introduced by the Government of the day for this purpose. That Bill proposed the preservation as open space of only some 1,000 acres, and it failed to pass. On 20 April 1871 a further motion was carried in the Commons that measures be taken to preserve as an open space all those parts of Epping Forest which had not been enclosed by the assent of the Crown or by legal authority.
The Corporation of London then resolved to take steps itself to resist encroachments on the forest and, basing its claims on its rights as commoner in respect of its ownership of Ilford cemetery, it instituted a suit in Chancery against the lords of the manor. In 1874, after protracted and costly litigation the Corporation succeeded in obtaining a decree of the court to the effect that the owners and occupiers of land in the forest were entitled to rights in common over the whole of the waste lands.
In the meantime, under an Act passed in 1871 commissioners had been appointed to report on the possibility of preserving the forest as an open space for the public, but when they presented their final report in 1877 they recommended a scheme whereby land already unlawfully enclosed should remain enclosed unless repurchased at its full market value.
The Corporation successfully resisted those proposals, and when the Epping Forest Act 1878 was passed it provided that lands enclosed since 1851 should be thrown open and all questions as to the extent of the lands and as to the compensation payable and other matters should be determined by a named arbitrator acting with special powers.
Before the passing of the Act of 1878 the Corporation had been actively engaged in the purchase of land in the forest by negotiation. Under that Act it accepted full responsibility for the payment of all compensation in accordance with the arbitrator's decisions.
Since the passing of the Act it has from time to time expended considerable sums in the acquisition of further lands to add to the forest. In addition, the Corporation bears the annual expenses incurred in the management of the forest now running at about £370,000 per year.
Because it is germane to this debate, it may also be helpful if I remind the House of section 7 of the Epping Forest Act 1878. That says:
 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Conservators shall at all times keep Epping Forest uninclosed and unbuilt on, as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public: and they shall by all lawful means, prevent, resist, and abate all future inclosures, encroachments, and buildings, and all attempts to inclose, encroach, or build on any part thereof, or to appropriate or use the same, or the soil, timber, or roads thereof, or any part thereof, for any purpose inconsistent with the objects of this Act.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Conservators shall not sell, demise, or otherwise alienate any part of the Forest, or concur in any sale, demise, or other alienation thereof, or of any part thereof.
(3) The Conservators shall at all times as far as possible preserve the natural aspect of the Forest ".
Then it goes into various details relating to care of the woodlands and of ancient earthworks.
Section 9 further declares that the public shall have the right to use Epping Forest as an open space for recreation and enjoyment.
Under Section 33—and I feel obliged to refer again to this because it comes on to the reference to roads—general powers are conferred upon the Corporation for the management of the forest, but these powers fall to be construed in the light of the primary duty set out in section 7. These general powers include, in section 33(1)(iv), a power to maintain and make roads, footpaths and ways, to dedicate roads to the public subject to the law of highways, to afford facilities and grant rights of way for access to enclosures.
Section 33(1)(xiii) also includes—this is relevant as well—power to set apart parts


of the forest for the use of the inhabitants to play cricket and other sports, to lay out and maintain cricket grounds and grounds for other sports, and to enter into agreements and confer special privileges on particular clubs.
That covers the legislative background within which the City Corporation has to discharge its trusteeship. Because some of the hon. Members who are present are here for the "ecology" of the evening, I shall also say a word about the woodland management practice. I shall shorten this by saying that two-thirds of the area of the forest is woodland and one-third grassland, interspersed with blocks of woodland, the greater part of the woodland being in the northern half of the forest.
In pursuance of its duty to preserve the natural aspect, the management of the woodlands has been based on a system of natural regeneration, and anything which suggests plantation management has been avoided. Therefore, in the northern part of the forest, that is the area closest to the line of the M25, the woodlands comprise the largest block of hardwoods in the United Kingdom.
Obviously, there have been occasions in the past when there has been a need for road improvements relating to the forest. It would be wrong for the debate to take place without my acknowledging and referring to that background. The A11 runs through the forest from north to south. Many other roads of all classes divide and loosen the structure of the forest, especially in the southern part.
From time to time the Corporation is faced with demands for the use of forest land by public services. It endeavours to accommodate these claims by the grant of wayleaves subject to suitable safeguards, but demands for highway improvements give rise to special problems.
Since the passing of the 1878 Act the Corporation has dedicated for highway purposes forest lands extending to about 101 acres, which include the formal dedication of strips of land that have come to be used as part of the highways that traverse the forest. The loss of these scattered strips from the open forest has been more than made good by the addition to the forest during this period of about 275 acres. In addition, the Corporation

has made dedication of forest land for highway purposes subject to conditions. That is also germane to the Bill. For example, on agreeing to the dedication of lands for addition to minor roads radiating from the High Beech area, the Corporation made it a condition that the roads should not be used by larger vehicles. That condition was accepted by the Ministry of Transport and a weight restriction was imposed on the roads in or about 1966.
In 1967 proposals were made by the Ministry of Transport for re-routing the North Circular Road at Walthamstow for a distance of about 860 yards across Walthamstow Forest, affecting some 14 acres of forest land. The Corporation sought to have the road built in a tunnel but was informed that that was impracticable within the context of the local road strategy. On that occasion the Corporation decided that its powers for dedication under the 1878 Act did not permit its agreement to the dedication of land for the road. As the only land available as exchange land for addition to the forest area was some allotment gardens for which compulsory powers of acquisition were required, the proposals were submitted to and approved by Parliament in the Epping Forest (Waterworks Corner) Act 1968.
On subsequent occasions proposals have been put to the Corporation for highway improvements at important junctions involving severance of substantial areas of forest land and the creation of isolated areas of forest. In refusing its consent the Corporation has informed the highway authorities that for major road improvements of the sort proposed it would be necessary to apply to Parliament for leave to vary the provisions of the 1878 Act. That again brings us to the debate.
It is possibly coincidental that subsequently such proposals have either been abandoned or modified to reduce the demands on forest lands to such an extent as to enable the Corporation to consider the exercise of its powers to dedicate the land. I mention that to illustrate that the City as a conservator has been an effective conservationist in defending the forest against interference and damaging depredation on transport grounds.
That brings me, by a logical train of narrative, and perhaps to the relief of the House, to the orbital motorway. Since the late 1960s the Corporation has actively been concerned with the possibility of routing the M25 orbital motorway, formerly called the M16 motorway, across Epping Forest. Before that it was concerned with the proposals for ringway 3. In February 1967 the Corporation represented to the Ministry of Transport that the intersection of the M11 with any intended ring road should be sited at a point which would not necessitate the routing of the ring road across the forest. Subsequently, proposals were made for a route across the forest and the Corporation urged that, if that were necessary, the road should be tunnelled under the forest.
In 1970 the Department, as it had by then become, produced a plan showing five possible routes for the orbital motorway across forest land, the northernmost being at Bell Common. The Corporation determined that all the routes except the northernmost would be totally unacceptable and that although it would object to all the routes it might be prepared to modify the objection if it were found practicable to place the northernmost route in tunnel.
There followed a number of meetings with the Department and with other interested parties. The Corporation was informed that no route further north to avoid the forest land altogether was practicable, and it has therefore been concerned to secure that the route chosen should be one that would do the least damage to forest amenities.
The Corporation has throughout urged the Department in the strongest terms to construct the road in tunnel through the forest, preferably by a bored tunnel, but, failing that, by the cut-and-cover method. In its view that is the minimum requirement for safeguarding the forest environment so far as practicable in the face of these developments. The Corporation has also been concerned to ensure that there was no intersection with the A11 which would have the effect of increasing traffic flows on roads in the forest. It has also been consulted upon the nature of construction of the proposed route at Copped Hall Green.
I pause at this juncture of the narrative to allow myself a brief comment on the deer in the forest, which played a large part in the public inquiry on the M25. The deer are affected by the proposed bridge at Copped Hall Green. Even my brief experience in the House has taught me that there is sometimes more concern in the House for animals than for people. In commenting on the deer, we are exceedingly lucky in having available to us the work of Dr. and Mrs. Donald Chapman. Dr. Chapman is a research chemist who was born and brought up on the edge of the forest. Mrs. Chapman is a zoologist. Both individually and together they are the authors of a series of monographs on fallow deer in general and fallow deer in Essex in particular.
It will probably come as no surprise to the House that the number of deer in the forest, which fell dangerously low by the 1860s before the City took over the forest in 1878, rose steadily after 1878. It is true that in recent years they have tended to congregate more in the wild in the private land to the north of the forest, which provides an ideal habitat for them. However, they are still to be found in the forest. Indeed, the City, at its own expense, has purchased 80 acres at the edge of the forest to create a deer sanctuary for about 160 deer.
Crucial to the Bill are facilities for the deer to cross under the motorway. Dr. Chapman provided evidence for the inquiry on what the arrangements should be for the deer to go about their lawful occasions. Deer, like elephants, are creatures of habit over their routes. The arrangements that have been made exceed those that he specified. Similar arrangements have been made in the plans for smaller mammals such as badgers.
At the time of the inquiry into the route of this section of the M25, the Department proposed that only 200 metres of the motorway from Epping Road should be buried, that being in its view a length sufficient to preserve the physical continuity of forest land. Together with many other objectors, the Corporation appeared at the inquiry and urged that the proposed tunnel should extend across the full 450 metres of forest land between Epping Road and Theydon Road notwithstanding the additional cost, then estimated at a further £2·5 million.
In his report on the inquiry the inspector, Mr. Clinch, reported that in his opinion the Department had chosen the best point for the road to cross the forest but that the restriction of the tunnel to 200 metres would cause severe environmental intrusion on forest land. In their decision letter, the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment stated that they considered the issue whether to extend the tunnel to be finely balanced but that having regard to the special nature of the Epping Forest land they accepted the inspector's recommendation to extend the tunnel to Theydon Road.
Part of the forest land affected by the proposed motorway at Bell Common is laid out as a cricket ground used by the Epping Foresters cricket club under licence granted by the Corporation under the Epping Forest Act 1878. The proposals for the motorway have been discussed between the Department, the cricket club and the Corporation, and it has been agreed that, on the completion of the motorway in tunnel at that point, the cricket ground will be reinstated and the pavilion rebuilt on land adjoining. During the construction period of about two years it has been agreed that the cricket club will be a wandering team and that the Department will pay it compensation.
In summarising part II of the Bill I shall go briefly over the clauses before commending the Bill to the House. The clauses in part II have been agreed between the Corporation and the Department. The provisions set in italics involve a charge on public moneys and require a money resolution, which was taken this afternoon.
Clause 3 provides the appropriate definitions. As defined in the clause, "the roadworks" means the length of the M25 orbital motorway authorised by the M25 motorway—A10 to M11 section—and Connecting Roads Scheme 1978, Statutory Instrument No. 330, referred to in the preamble to the Bill.
Clause 4 requires the Corporation to grant to the Secretary of State the freehold in 3·647 hectares—9 acres—including isolated strips required for the motorway which are of no importance to the forest and the area at Mill Plain which, on completion of the tunnel, is to be dedicated for public use in conjunction with adjoining forest land and rights of

temporary occupation, drainage rights and rights of access in 2·229 hectares—5½ acres. That is the area of Bell Common relating to the tunnel, which will then be restored.
In the case of lands required for temporary occupation, the Secretary of State will be required to reinstate the lands on completion of the purpose for which they are required and restore them to the forest. Where drainage rights are required, the public use of the lands would continue subject to those rights.
Clause 5 requires the Secretary of State to grant to the Corporation in exchange an area of land not less than the total area affected, namely, 5·876 hectares—14½ acres. These exchange lands have not yet been identified and the Corporation would wish that time should be allowed to find the most suitable land. Under the clause the Corporation, as the guardian of the forest, would have to be satisfied about the suitability of the exchange lands subject to the right of the Secretary of State to refer the matter to arbitration under Clause 9.
Clause 6 declares the Secretary of State's expressed intention to construct the motorway across Mill Plain, where the cricket ground is situated, in cut-and-cover tunnel and to dedicate the surface to public use.
Clause 7 makes provision for the protection of the Epping Foresters cricket club. The clause has been agreed with the club.
Clause 8 provides an indemnity to the Corporation in respect of costs and claims arising, and clause 9 makes provision for arbitration of disputes between the Secretary of State and the Corporation.
I hope that I have not wearied the House by dealing with these matters at excessive length. All hon. Members have been subjected to communications about the Bill from outside the House. It seemed in the interests of the House that what lay behind the Bill should be fully covered. With those words, I commend the Bill to the House.

7.42 p.m.

Miss Jo Richardson: My objection to this Bill—this is the reason why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) tabled a blocking motion—is confined to part of the Bill, as I am sure most people will realise.


It is confined to that part of the Bill which refers to the erosion into Epping Forest required by the Department for the purposes of its special new road and connecting roads forming part of the M25. I am sure that most of the Bill is long overdue, although a question arose in my mind when I read about the museum charges. I am not convinced by the remarks of the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) that we need not be worried because it is not intended that this part of the Bill should be used. If the City of London is not intending to use this provision, why put it in the Bill? Perhaps, at some stage, an hon. Member will enlighten me on that matter.
I hope that the House will not consider me discourteous if I am not present for the whole of the debate. I arranged some time ago to meet 60 constituents upstairs in a Committee Room, and I feel that I cannot let them down. I hope that the House will not feel that this shows any discourtesy or any lack of interest in the Bill. I had the impression during the speech of the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South that he was not intending to give away parts of Epping Forest but was anxious to preserve them. He gave an excellent and interesting run-down of the history of Epping Forest and showed how well the City of London has conserved the forest, beating off robber barons from right and left. We now have a robber baron in the guise of the Department of Transport wanting to lay its hands on yet another little bit of the forest which is so dear to the hearts of so many people.
It is because I have a dual interest in Epping Forest that I rise to speak in this debate. Part of my interest is a personal one. I know the forest fairly well. I was born in the North-East but my mother was born in Essex and I went to school in Southend. Most of my teenage years were spent in that area. I know some of its beauty spots very well. I am deeply concerned over the latest evidence, in general terms, that we are using cement and concrete to cover up some of the nicer parts of our countryside. This interest occurred long before my association with my constituency. But my constituency is very relevant to the argument.
Barking is a built-up set of estates, and my constituents rely on using other parts of Essex at the weekend to take a picnic with their children or to spend time in a caravan. Epping Forest is very much an integral part of those pastimes. Many of my constituents object to the idea of a motorway going through even a small part of the forest that they like so much. It is an amenity that they have enjoyed for generations. If there is any alternative, even at this late hour, which avoids cutting into Epping Forest, it ought to be pursued in general environmental interests and in the interests of people who have used the forest for a long time and want to continue to use it in its existing form.
I oppose giving this Bill a Second Reading on the nod. I feel that there should be more parliamentary scrutiny than simply allowing it to go through without any objection at 2.30 p.m. I am glad to see that so many hon. Members, many with an interest in this part of the country, have remained to take part in, or to listen to, this debate. It is important that this sort of matter should not go through the House without hon. Members giving it as much parliamentary scrutiny as possible.
I am not opposed to the M25 project in principle. There are arguments for and against it. On balance, the economic, social and environmental consequences of its construction, affecting London and the green belt in the South-East, will be good and will fulfil the claims of reduced traffic in inner London. It will make that part of our area much pleasanter without, I hope, causing too much harm to other areas through which it will be constructed. Many conflicting views have been put forward over the years, not only from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure that there are differing views on the Opposition side as on this side of the House about the use or desirability of an orbital road and claims made for what it will do. I am not an expert. I have often found myself confused by two arguments which are totally different, both claiming advantages.
We are not really discussing the pros and cons of the orbital road except its effects on Epping Forest and the damage that would be caused to that part of the countryside. I do not want to detain the


House by arguing that the M25 is itself necessarily bad. In terms of this Bill, it would be a pity to divert attention from the specific point made in part II. If this road is to run through the areas of Epping Forest described by the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South, which are listed in the Bill and available in the Private Bill Office and shown on maps, it will surely do great damage to the environment. It is not simply that a great wide motorway will be at least partially touching this lovely forest.
Many of us have driven along motorways and know the pollution damage caused by them. We know about the noise, the dust and the general unsightly appearance of a concrete strip running through a beautiful part of the countryside. It is not merely a question of the size of the motorway. I believe that the pollution that it would cause would probably be worse than any other damage that it might produce.
The forest is a place of peaceful enjoyment and historic value to people in this part of the world. A great road going through bits of it—although it has been said "It is only a little bit here, and then it winds round and it is a little bit there"—with noise and fumes, would spoil that kind of peaceful beauty and ruin the glade-like appearance. I know many little bits around the area that we are discussing which I am sure would be destroyed, even if they themselves were not built on for the motorway. The very fact that they would be so near a big motorway would ruin them.
It is no good saying, as we can in regard to other things, "Let us try it. Let us see the value of the motorway. Perhaps it will be so great that we ought to put other things on one side and agree to have it in the interests of progress and of convenience for people, and so on." Once one has built a motorway and chopped up even a small part of the forest, there is no going back. There is no saying, 10 years on, after it has been built, "We made a mistake. It is hardly ever used. It is rather ugly, so let us go back and have the nice peaceful land that we had before." It is a one-off matter and for ever. It is something over which we must take the greatest care before we proceed.
As the hon. Member has said, the Epping Forest Act 1878 put specific responsibilities on the conservators. The hon. Member quoted from the Act, and I should like to repeat a few of the words that he quoted, which led me to think that he would support them. Section 7 of the Act provides that the conservators shall
 keep Epping Forest uninclosed and unbuilt on, as an open space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public; and they shall by all lawful means, prevent, resist, and abate all future inclosures, encroachments".
That is what Epping Forest is all about. I hand it to the City of London, as the conservators, that it has done its job excellently.
The hon. Member mentioned section 7(3) of the Act:
 The Conservators shall at all times as far as possible preserve the natural aspect of the Forest ".
How can that kind of undertaking in particular be guaranteed if we let this legislation go through and do not protest and ask the Department to find another way of achieving its objective?
I know that the conservators are to be given under the Bill other lands in lieu of what will be taken away from Epping Forest by the Secretary of State. That really will not compensate for the ruin of the natural aspect of those parts which are to be taken away and which people have become used to.
Even at this late stage, I beg the House to reconsider this part of the Bill. I believe that the Bill will go to an Opposed Bill Committee. I hope that that Committee will give very great thought to this aspect. I hope that the House will take it from me, and from other hon. Members too, I am sure, that there is a great wealth and strength of opinion outside the House, particularly in the areas surrounding those areas concerned. I remind the House that at the time of the public inquiry in 1974–75 a petition containing 21,000 signatures was presented objecting to the proposal. I am absolutely certain that the number has not only remained at 21,000 at least but has grown.
Last Sunday morning, on the radio, I heard Lord Olivier speak very movingly on "The Week's Good Cause" on behalf of the Council for the Protection of Rural


England. Because I have always been a devoted fan of that brilliant actor, I listened very carefully to what he had to say. Knowing that this Bill would be coming before the House today, I realised then how much it is in the interests of all of us in this country to preserve every little bit that we have as far as possible as it is now, rather than allow great concrete strips to be driven through our countryside. I hope that this bit of rural England, in Essex, will remain as it is.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) on the lucid and persuasive manner with which he opened the debate. It is right that there should be a debate, and it is entirely proper that the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) should refuse the City of London the opportunity of having this Bill on the nod. We are indebted to her and to those who have insisted that we should have a proper Second Reading debate.
The hon. Lady and I are united, at least, in this: we love Epping Forest. Therefore, it was not without heart-searching and misgiving that I decided, at length, that as Member of Parliament for Epping Forest I would give my support to the Bill, including part II.
Of course there is opposition to part II within my constituency—for example, from the Upshire Village Preservation Society, which has petitioned against the Bill. While I have decided to support the Bill, I am full of admiration for the strenuous and intelligent campaign waged over the years by that society. It speaks for a number of my constituents in Upshire itself, High Beech, Epping, They-don Bois, Chigwell, Chigwell Row, Loughton and Buckhurst Hill, and of course it speaks for others well outside the Epping Forest constituency and outside the county of Essex.
The hon. Member for Barking said that she is not against the M25. However, I think that we have reached a point at which it is difficult not to be against the M25 and, at the same time, to be against part II of the Bill.
If the hon. Lady is eager to meet some constituents and is keeping them waiting, I shall not be in the least offended if she leaves the Chamber, although I shall be delighted if she remains to hear what I have to say. I should not be in the least put out if she wishes to join her constituents.
However many people may have signed the petition to which the hon. Lady referred, my impression—I have taken some trouble to make inquiries—is that in Epping and elsewhere there is widespread and numerically larger support for a measure which is seen as a necessary step towards the completion of the M25, from which they hope for relief from the congestion of town streets and country roads by heavy traffic.
I confirmed this morning with the chief executive and clerk of the Epping Forest district council that the council favours the Bill. We are all looking forward to hearing the Minister. I believe that he will have something to say about how damage to the forest and its surroundings is to be minimised. We have heard something of this from my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South. He has quite rightly not forgotten either the deer or the Epping Foresters cricket club. Clause 6, about the tunnel to be constructed by cut-and-cover on Bell Common, is of special importance, and I know that that will be noted by hon. Members.
I received a letter today from a lady in Buckhurst Hill who is opposed to the Bill but who favours the scheme put forward by Mr. Barry Fineberg in the Architects' Journal of 13 December 1978. She acknowledges that
 The Department of the Environment has made great concessions to the forest in the final plans for the motorway ".
She says that she is grateful for that. She is at the same time anxious that Mr. Fineberg's scheme should proceed. So, indeed, are the petitioners against the Bill. The lady is concerned—as is the hon. Member for Barking—lest the motorway cuts the forest from the open countryside and thus obstructs the natural movement of wild life.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South referred to the proposed deer crossing. I trust that we shall hear more about that from the Minister.
Like my constituent earlier I was attracted by the alternative northerly route for the motorway through the Lea valley, which would have made it unnecessary for the forest to be touched. That alternative is not before us. If it ever was a starter, it is not now. I want to be practical. The Government, having held their public inquiry and having published their route and made modifications, should now adhere to their decision. I speak without authority but I think that the Government's Conservative successor will also adhere to the decision. Despite what the hon. Member for Barking said, I do not think that an alternative exists, unless we say that this road should not be completed.
It is preferable for the 5·87 hectares—let us call it 9 acres—to be made over to the Secretary of State for Transport in the way provided for in the Bill, rather than the Government being left to proceed in ways that might be less acceptable. It is not clear from what the hon. Lady said whether she is aware that the Government will be required to find, in exchange, land for the forest that is equally advantageous. I take that to mean a plot that is satisfactory to the conservators of the forest.
It is important to note that the conservators are promoting this Bill. They would not be doing so had they not, in their wisdom and zeal for the forest, thought it proper to promote it. My hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South gave an admirable historical outline. Last year the City of London completed a century of vigilant and efficient stewardship, performed with the City's cash and at no charge to any taxpayer or ratepayer.
I marked the occasion of the centenary of the Epping Forest Act by tabling an early-day motion thanking the verderers and all concerned for maintaining the forest for the use and enjoyment of all the people and for posterity. Because of the devotion that the conservators have shown I am encouraged in my support of the Bill, since it provides the best course in the circumstances in which we now stand.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Magee: Although the proposed M25 does not go through any part of the London borough of

Waltham Forest, which contains my constituency, we are one of the Epping Forest boroughs and therefore we are deeply concerned with the future of the forest as a whole.
So I have discussed this Bill, so ably moved by the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), with appropriate members of my local authority; and they have raised no objection to it. The negative way I put that is significant. Many of us decided reluctantly not to oppose the Bill. For there is a high price to be paid. I am one of those Londoners who has enjoyed the facilities of Epping Forest from earliest childhood. I literally cannot remember a time before I was being taken there by my parents. So I know from my own experience the enormous enrichment that the forest brings, and has always brought, to the people of London.
I have tramped the course that the M25 is to take over Epping Forest to see what will be lost. It cost me a beat of the heart to see what will have to go. But, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said, we have to choose between this Bill and not having the M25. We cannot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) hoped we could, have it both ways. We have either to accept the Bill and its implications or reject the M25. It is no good asking if another way can be found. Years have been spent looking for another way, and no other practicable way is available.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman knows that not only am I from his borough but that I am from the northern part and therefore closer to the forest. I sat for four years as the Member for Epping Forest during earlier stages when we were looking for another route. Even then, when there was a greater possibility of finding other routes, I was reluctantly forced to the same conclusion as he has now reached. There was not another route then, let alone now.

Mr. Magee: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) for reinforcing my argument. His point also illustrates the fact that Members on both sides of the House are supporting this Bill, though I suspect they also do so reluctantly.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that the present proposals should be carefully scrutinised to see whether, even though they are put into effect, it might be possible to improve them further? Does he also agree that, because of his desire to conserve the forest, the House should ask that that be done?

Mr. Magee: I am entirely in agreement with my hon. Friend about that. We take the view that we do in the London borough of Waltham Forest partly because of the lack of alternatives, partly because there have been really intelligent and assiduous attempts to mitigate the damage by the cut-and-cover construction, partly because of the excellent record of the City of London in maintaining the forest, and partly because we have considerable confidence in the conservators to see that the thing is done properly.
But, having said that, everyone concerned with this scheme must take full account of the feelings and arguments of the people who oppose it. It would be quite wrong if they thought they could say, after this debate: "Right, now we have got our permission—to hell with the opposition." There are genuinely strong reasons, and even stronger emotions, against the proposals, and these must be taken into account.
I want to single out one for consideration. It is the question of precedent. I know that to argue against something on the grounds that it sets a bad precedent is often a lazy or fraudulent way of arguing, but it is not in this case.
Epping Forest is a limited and unique piece of open country. It would be terrible if, on the ground of one particular need, a bit was snipped off here, and on the ground of some other need a bit was snipped off there. That process might be supported each time by good arguments but the cumulative result would be disastrous.
So although, reluctantly, I support the the Bill, I could not accept it as a precedent for anything. I shall say "No" in the future if anyone in the House cites this Bill as a precedent for cutting back the forest still further.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I shall confine my remarks to part III of the

Bill. I also wish to put the Kentish view in this Essex debate. The M25 forms a complete circle. We must have it. I am particularly pleased to see the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry) in the Chamber, because he and I know how rotten the South Circular Road is. We also know that, comparatively, the North Circular Road is a good road.
Unless the M25 is made into a perfect orbital road to carry the traffic that wishes to avoid the centre of London, we in Kent, with people coming from and going to the Channel ports and even to the gateway of the Channel tunnel—if that is built—will suffer. There is a great national need.
Those of us who live in other parts of the country appreciate the thoughtful words and personal sacrifice on behalf of constituents that have been made by hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. They have spoken with thought and concern. I share their concern but I wish to emphasise the national aspect.
I can give a word of comfort from personal knowledge, from many miles away, to those who are worried about the well-being of the deer. I own part of the top of the Whiteball tunnel on the Western Region of British Rail. By that surface route across the railway the deer cross from the Quantock Hills to the Blackdown Hills, in Somerset. If there were no tunnel, the deer would not have made that crossing since the railway was built in the 1840s. I can assure people who are fond of deer that a tunnel, provided that it is long enough, can protect deer. The Minister was wise to agree to the longer tunnel. Such a tunnel will provide a sure passage for deer.
I turn to the part of the Bill that interests me most. Hon. Members will know about my long-standing interest in market matters. I am glad that adequate provision is being made for a move of Billingsgate market to a new site. I am delighted that some of the errors that crept in when we were dealing with the Covent Garden move will not apply in this case. I am particularly glad to see clause 15, which allows for the Billingsgate market consultative advisory committee. Such a committee was established as an afterthought for the Covent Garden scheme and it has proved beneficial. I am glad that the City Corporation has learned wisdom. I am also


glad that the market porters are being fully considered. Clause 14 deals adequately with that matter.
It is important to note that in clause 15, although the City, which is the present market authority, will be represented on the consultative and advisory committee, it will not have the controlling voice. That is important. If a consultative committee truly is to represent all the interests, the market authority should not be the boss-man. I look forward to the consultative committee working well.
I turn to clause 20. I am an occasional buyer and a rare seller at Spitalfields market and I should declare a remote interest. I am glad that the clause will enable the Corporation to extend the security of tenure of traders in that market. This can be only good.
Hon. Members have paid tribute to the excellence of the City Corporation as conservators of Epping Forest. I also pay tribute to the excellent work of the City Corporation, which is appreciated by all those who work in the markets. The volume of goods that goes through the City markets might be declining, but it is essential that there shoud be a great price-setting market for every commodity. The City of London provides this in its markets. Spitalfields, Smithfield and Billingsgate markets enable the City to be at the heart of national price-setting for all the main commodities that people eat.
I commend the Bill to the House. I hope that those who are critical of part of the Bill will not vote against it but will allow it to go to Committee, where their anxieties can be scrutinised.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Newens: The reason for my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) and I objecting to the Bill going through on the nod is our deep concern about the transfer of land which now forms part of Epping Forest to the Secretary of State for Transport for the construction of the M25 motorway.
Unlike some hon. Members, I cannot say that my reservations about the proposals have been removed. Epping Forest is a famous recreation area which has long been enjoyed not only by the residents of West Essex but by people from East London and further afield. The

forest contains numerous historic sites. It has a unique natural life. It is an area of great beauty.
Last year we celebrated the centenary of the 1878 Epping Forest Act by which our predecessors ensured the preservation of this area of common land for the use of the public. That Act was not achieved without a great struggle. Of course, the Corporation of London, the Buxton family and other leading figures in the Victorian period played an honourable part. The movement was, however, also supported by many ordinary working people, amongst whom a humble Loughton man, Thomas Willingale, and his family must take pride of place. He initiated the resistance to the lord of the manor of Loughton who wished to enclose the forest before the Corporation was involved, ultimately hoping to dispose of it for speculative purposes. It was a long and hard struggle. Had it not triumphed, and had not our predecessors, many of whom were humble folk, taken part, Epping Forest would long ago have disappeared under concrete, bricks and mortar.
Those who resisted enclosures and speculators 100 years ago were not always seen as progressives. History shows that many regarded the forest as a nuisance. It harboured undesirable people and sometimes provided refuge for gipsies. Those wishing to protect and preserve the forest were seen as obstructors standing in the way of progress. When we resist the proposal this evening, we may equally be seen as obstructionist. But if there are not people who are prepared to resist encroachment on that part of our heritage, it will ultimately disappear. It is our duty to question pertinently and carefully every proposal that is put forward for encroachment, and history can judge whether we are obstructionist.
Today the pressure is not from private speculators who have lost out. It is not even from those who are pressing for building land. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) will remember that just after the Second World War West Ham council was anxious to acquire part of Wanstead Flats for a housing estate. At a time when there was a great housing need, many would have seen that as a priority. But some 35 years later we can see that it would have been a mistake.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: As my hon. Friend knows, I was in the House at that time. Then, as now, the most successful opponent was the City Corporation, which has so well preserved Epping Forest. The City of London and the City conservators have always fought and are still fighting to preserve the forest.

Mr. Newens: I entirely agree. My political position would not be regarded as close to that of many members of the Corporation. My praise for the conservators can therefore be regarded as objective. I pay tribute to them. Many who participate in conserving Epping Forest have a great sense of public duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West also expressed views on the issue that may not have been popular among his constituents just after the war.
The pressure today is not from the same sources as in the past but from other public authorities, and it is principally for roads. West Essex, of which Epping Forest forms part, has not been ungenerous in the provision of land over the past 30 or 40 years for other purposes. Not only have GLC estates been built, but so has Harlow new town, which I represent. There has also been the aerodrome at North Weald. That served an important purpose during the war. A little further to the north, proposals are being mooted again for the possible use of a large tract of land for the third London airport at Stansted, to which I am opposed. Land has been provided for the M11 through West Essex. Surely, in these circumstances we should look very carefully at proposals to take still more land from this area.
As the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) pointed out, the forest consists of 6,000 acres of woodland and plain stretching from Wanstead to Thornwood. It is 12 miles long but comparatively narrow. After the 1968 Act it was cut across at Waterworks Corner at Walthamstow. The M25 proposal involves a new and equally savage cut further to the north. This would not merely remove a certain acreage of land but would change much of the environment in that part of the forest. It would change it both visually and in terms of noise. In addition, it

would cut across some adjacent open land which has certain scenic value and which should not be discounted.
I am pleased with the proposal to make a cutting and tunnel for part of the motorway. This represents an improvement on some of the earlier proposals, but I still believe that areas adjacent to the forest where the motorway is planned will be disfigured by bridges and high-level roads and the interchange at Copped Hall Green.
I am deeply concerned about the effect on Upshire. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who represents that village, has already commented that Upshire Village Preservation Society has been particularly active on this issue. Upshire is a very beautiful village, and it would be appalling if a high-level road and a bridge were constructed there disfiguring that area.
This matter must be looked at again. I hope that the Committee will provide an opportunity to do that. A number of hon. Members have commented on the wild life that exists in the forest. It still exists, but it has been affected considerably by development over the years. Much of the original deer population which I remember as a boy has now departed despite the efforts, which we all praise, of the Corporation and other interested people.
In addition, the forest in its present state also represents a haven for wild life from some surrounding areas—areas which are being constantly developed for housing. Even where these have remained in agricultural use they have frequently been stripped of hedges and trees and polluted by pesticides and chemicals. Nowadays it is difficult to find ponds with tadpoles, frogs and many of the fish that could be found in West Essex when I was a boy. However, they have survived to some extent in the forest. If hon. Members wish Epping Forest to survive—as I believe they all do—they should be concerned about the effect that a motorway will have on the forest environment.
The proposed M25 will cut right across the forest. Certain proposals have been made to enable some of the wild life to travel from the north to the south and back again. Those proposals should be re-examined carefully, because I suspect that some of the wild life uses the land at the side of the forest. The plans should


be reviewed and studied carefully before they are implemented and, possibly, constitute a great new desecration of Epping Forest.
Those of us who oppose the present development and are deeply concerned about it should not be dismissed as eccentrics. Among our number are not only residents in the area but the Friends of the Earth and many who live miles away and know the forest from their visits to it.
Epping Forest is part of our heritage and we have a duty to protect it for the enjoyment of generations to come. I am an East Londoner and my ancestors lived in East London for generations before me. They have visited Epping Forest, even in the memory of my family, for more than 100 years.
In a debate in 1968 I stated that the forest could eventually die the death of a thousand cuts. I believe that the forest will not stand many more cuts such as that proposed in the Bill. I recognise that there must be some lateral road communications across West Essex, but the present proposals are not satisfactory. Therefore, I hope that there is still time for further reconsideration in order to avoid the undesirable consequence of further spoliation of this beautiful part of the country. That may be achieved in Committee and, for that reason, I shall not oppose the Second Reading.
However, some of my hon. Friends, including those who are not present, are agreed that, unless guarantees are given on the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking and myself, we shall feel it our duty to continue to put up such resistance as is possible to prevent the further passage of the Bill.
Clause 18 refers to provisions for charges on admission to museums. I have visited the excellent new museum created by the Corporation of the City of London. It provides a tremendous opportunity to learn about the past of London. I should be sad if charges were imposed which would, inevitably, deter many who should know more about the history of our great capital city.

Mr. Wells: I understand that the charges are intended to enable the Corporation to set up special exhibitions at which admission would obviously have to be by ticket only. The ordinary facilities of the museum are excellent, but the

imposition of charges is intended to enable the Corporation to take a further step forward.

Mr. Newens: I accept that that is the objective, but I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind what happened to a previous proposal that was implemented at national level with the support of Conservative Members. I hope that we will not support the introduction of charges for all visitors except on very special occasions. Even then, I hope that charges can be avoided wherever possible.
I am unhappy that I have to express so many reservations about the Bill, but no one with pride in, or affection for, our countryside can view with equanimity its further desecration, and it is, therefore, necessary for hon. Members to express any reservations that they may have.
Epping Forest is a unique stretch of countryside and no one can maintain that the proposals in the Bill will not damage it. If our generation fails to stand firm against its continuing erosion we shall deserve the condemnation of those who come after us.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: Like most other hon. Members who have spoken so far, I intend to concentrate on the part of the Bill dealing with Epping Forest and the M25.
Although my constituents are somewhat removed from Epping Forest, they, like most other residents of Essex and East London, very much enjoy the pleasures of the forest and wish that no steps should be taken to reduce that enjoyment materially. However, they are passionately in favour of the M25 going ahead because there are many substantial traffic problems in the areas around Brentwood and Ongar that can be removed only by the completion of the M25.
This is not a debate on the merits or otherwise of the M25, but it is within the rules of order for me to say that the motorway, one section of which we are discussing, was first mooted as long ago as 1944. Since then, there have been several changes of name, changes of route and changes of Government, to the point where my constituents feel that any change of heart by this or any future Government in pressing forward with the M25 would be totally unacceptable. They


also feel that any attempt to obstruct the reasonable progress of the construction of the M25 should be equally opposed.
There can be hardly any other major capital city that does not have an orbital route around its extremities. We are to be criticised for still having, after successive Governments of both parties, an incomplete road structure around the capital.
The advantages of the M25, if they need restating, are surely that in terms of commerce, trade and the recreation of the people on whose behalf we have been speaking there must be greater facility to move from point to point around the capital.
I want to concentrate on ecological and environmental factors relating to part of my constituency which will continue to suffer until the M25 is completed. I refer to villages along the A128 trunk road, which were previously peaceful havens but which now live in the midst of ever-growing, heavy traffic on a road which was never constructed to take it.
I endorse the argument that it is desirable for people to escape to the recreational spaces of Epping Forest. My constituents would also do so. In concentrating on the need for the Epping Forest open spaces to continue to be available for people of Essex and East London, I hope that an occasional thought will be given to the people in the villages in my constituency whose lives have been made a living hell as a result of the juggernauts trundling along the A128. I sincerely plead with the House not to hold up the progress of this Bill this evening.
The stretch of the M25 to which the Bill refers lies between the A10 and the M11. Therefore, it is far removed from the immediate area of my constituency. Until the M25 is complete and forms a true orbital road around the capital city of the United Kingdom, there will be inadequate communications around London. I do not believe that the M25 can or should be viewed in sections relative to the constituency interests of Members of Parliament. That is why I believe that the section between the A10 and the M11 must proceed in the same way

as all the other sections more immediately adjacent to my constituency.
I echo something that was said by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). I thought that she approached this matter in a reasonable manner. She is entitled, as is the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), to require that the House should consider it necessary to proceed with this Bill. I believe that in having given the opportunity to the House to debate the various points a service has been rendered to the interests of the progress of the M25 motorway.
I was concerned when the hon. Lady finished her speech by asking a question. She asked whether there was no alternative, even at this late hour, whether we could reconsider, and whether we had to cut into Epping Forest in the way proposed. That concerned me greatly. If that were thought to be a reason for further delay, for further investigation and for reopening those areas which, heaven knows, have been given a great deal of attention over the past years, it would be a retrograde step.
The hon. Member for Harlow seemed to open up and fight old battles which many of us thought had been given maximum opportunity for investigation in the past. Many of us feel that it is only after maximum public investigation that we are able and required to bring a Bill before the House. Although I commend those concerned for having brought this motion before the House to enable us to pause and think whether it is the right course to adopt, I would greatly regret any suggestion that obstruction and delay were synonymous with their action.

Mr. Newens: Does the hon. Member agree that if further consideration of these proposals could diminish the amount of environmental damage that is undoubtedly being caused, that would be desirable? Is it not worth while delaying the process a little in order that that greater good can be achieved?

Mr. McCrindle: Of course it is desirable to minimise any environmental damage, if that can be done without delaying the progress of the M25, but I repeat that the processes have been gone through exhaustively and that every conceivable opportunity has been given to


objectors. Every opportunity has been given to finding an alternative way that would minimise environmental damage. My fear about yielding to the hon. Gentleman's implied course of action is that it could be another way of delaying for a considerable period the progress of this motorway.
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he hoped that he and those who thought like him would not be dismissed as eccentrics. I would not for a moment dismiss the hon. Gentleman as an eccentric, but I recognise that he fights a tough battle. He is perfectly entitled to fight that tough battle, inasmuch as he is bringing to the attention of the House this evening the difficulties and, indeed, the dangers which are involved with the passage of the Bill. He is perfectly entitled also to hope that in Committee the Bill will be exhaustively explored. I hope that I have persuaded the House, however, that what the hon. Gentleman would not be entitled to do would be to delay the progress of the M25, because that would be to the detriment of my constituents and, indirectly, to the detriment of his.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: From time to time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Londoners have the opportunity of speaking on subjects that are of interest to them. I think that the House will agree that this opportunity is one that has come very readily to our ears, in that it deals with a number of subjects that are quite fascinating to London and to London Members. Nevertheless, the nub of the Bill is obviously the question that has taken up the time of most of the speakers so far—the land for which the Department of Transport has asked in order to complete a part of the M25.
This brings a certain apprehension to those of us who have that love for the forest which has been expressed by so many Members this evening. We are indebted to those Members, for by their objection in the first place we have been able to have this Second Reading debate.
I believe that the House has gained by having the debate. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) in hoping that when the subject is debated in Committee there will yet be a possibility of doing something to improve

the position. Nevertheless, having said that, I am here, in a way, in order to pay a debt to the City of London for what it has done in preserving Epping Forest.
As a boy I spent a good deal of my time in the forest—half-days and days, whenever I had the opportunity—so that I could enjoy the amenities there. We have already been told, and we know, that until the Epping Forest Act 1878 a great deal of the land had been eroded. It is quite true to say that there were pioneers who did much to bring to the attention of the public the need to save the forest. In the ultimate it has been the City of London and its conservators who have managed to conserve the forest for us.
There is a dilemma here between conservation and the provision of roads and traffic management. From the experience that we have had of the work of the conservators of the City of London, we can put a certain amount of confidence in them to get the best out of the situation that it is possible to obtain. I believe that the M25 should be built, for the reasons that have become apparent from the debate. It is essential to keep heavy traffic out of the highways and byways of the villages in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and also in my constituency, where heavy vehicles percolate through roads that were not made for them. All that could be obviated by the building of the orbital road.
It is necessary to compromise between the necessity for conservation and the provision of roads. A long time has been spent in negotiation between the City conservators and the Department of Transport, and a scheme has been produced that is broadly acceptable. It is to be hoped that as a result of the debate and the examination of the Bill in Committee improvements will be achieved.
There is one personal observation that I should like to make on the Bill. It concerns the moving of Billingsgate market from its present site to Tower Hamlets. In the first instance this will be for the benefit of the redevelopment of the dock area, but, apart from that, as one who uses the Lower Thames Road which passes through the market, I should be very pleased for the market


to be replaced by an imaginative scheme possibly based on the Monument and the rebuilding of the road that is such a trial to my car. That is something we have to look forward to. I trust that the Bill will get a Second Reading, as I am sure it will.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) on the excellent way in which he presented the Bill. I also add my congratulations to hon. Members who had certain reservations about it. The great virtue of the House of Commons is that we are able to debate sensibly issues that concern us and our constituents. I should not like the countryside to be destroyed just for the sake of the destruction of the countryside.
We have to look at the problems that face Londoners. In my constituency juggernauts and heavy traffic cause tremendous environmental problems. An immense number of juggernauts pass through the two constituencies of Ilford, North and Ilford, South, affecting the environment of the people who live in the area. That is because there is no orbital road around London. There should be a proper road system and structure to enable goods to be taken to the ports, so that our economy may be improved.
I believe that the most important part of the whole road network is the orbital road round London. The South Circular Road is just a series of roads linked together. We know that a tremendous amount of juggernaut traffic is coming from the industrial areas of the Midlands to the southern parts of the country. Therefore, it is vital for the economy of the whole country that we have the M25 circular road built around London.
If we are to have a motorway structure which comes into London—the M23, the M11 and other motorways, most of which come to the edge of the conurbation—it is vital that there is an orbital system to take the heavy traffic round the city and disperse it, rather than having it go through the centre as at present.
I believe that the M25 is vital to the environment of the inner city areas. We know that it is important to restructure

and redevelop dockland and the inner city areas. If that is so, and if we are to give a better quality of life to the people living in inner London, it is vital that the M25 be constructed.
I have made the points that I wanted to make tonight, and I thank the House for its indulgence. I hope that the Bill goes through to Committee and that we shall eventually see it on the statute book.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I, too, should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) for the admirable way in which he has introduced the Bill. Naturally, he was speaking on behalf of the promoters of the City of London, and as I have done so before I want to pay tribute to them also. As has been said, for 100 years they have given excellent service along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) mentioned. He may well have been right that 100 years ago, when the battle started, different individuals were then active, but for the last 100 years the City of London has carried on that battle.
I have not been here for the whole of that time but I have been involved for the past 34 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow was quite right when he mentioned the battle that went on when, had it not been for the City of London, there would now have been tower blocks on Wanstead Flats. Originally the excuse was that there should be houses. We had to fight, and the City of London led that fight. If it had not done so, houses would have led to tower blocks, tower blocks to schools, and schools to shops and there would be no Wanstead Flats as we know them today. Thank God that the City of London did its job and did it well. We worked together on it. I also pay tribute to the City of London for the excellent way in which it keeps West Ham park. It does an excellent job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), rightly say that we have to put up a fight to see that no liberty is taken with Epping Forest. But let us not lose the trees for the shadow, or the substance for the shadow. It is not the City of London that needs to be


checked or castigated; it is the Department of Transport. Not one word has been said about watching the Department of Transport, but that is what needs to be watched. It is the Department that makes pledges, gives promises and breaks them. The Department of Transport said that we would not have tachographs, whatever the EEC said, yet immediately it ran away and said "We will have tachographs now, reluctantly."
My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and Barking have initiated this debate. I am glad that they have done so, because we have got to work with the City of London. We may say that we do not really want the road, but we do, and although we are reluctant, because it will cause damage, we want the road without too much damage. If we find the Department of Transport reneging or taking any action, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow said I shall join him in saying that we should keep a check on the Department of Transport to keep it in order.
I do not trust the Department of Transport. By its actions over the years it has not proved that it has the best interests of the people at heart. The City of London has proved this. It has done so for 100 years, and certainly to my personal knowledge for the past 34 years.
I notice my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow smiling. Like him, I have gone along to many Ministers, ministerial advisers and local government officers. I have never found any of them so accommodating or helpful as the City of London authority and its officers. They have not put themselves out in the way that the City of London's officials have. When I have problems or difficulties over Wanstead Flats, West Ham park or Epping Forest, I know that I get better treatment from the authority's officials than I do from ministerial Departments.

Mr. McCrindle: I was just about to reflect that it must be a historic occasion when the hon. Gentleman in the same sentences praises the City of London and criticises the Department of Transport and a Labour Government.

Mr. Lewis: Had the hon. Gentleman been here long enough he would know that I have done this for 34 years, irrespective of what Government are in

power. That does not matter to me. If something is wrong, and if a Minister or his Department is wrong, I could not care less which Government are in power. The hon. Gentleman should know by now that I have said this on many occasions. I must have seen 3,000 or 4,000 Ministers of all parties pass through the House, but I can count on the fingers of two hands Ministers of either party who were good, in that they did what they wanted to do and were not dictated to by civil servants. The problem is that we do not have Ministers who are strong enough to stand up to Civil Service advisers.
When I go to the City of London, I meet its officers, its Court of Common Council men and its various councillors. I know that they stand up to such people. But I have not seen that happen in this House. Therefore, it is not a question of party; it is the old question of "White-hall knows best". I do not believe that Whitehall knows best.
That is why I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow. If Ministers transgress, I know that the City of London will try to stop them from doing so. I am sure that the City of London will do its best to look after the interests of the forest and its users. I am sure that the City of London would welcome the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and Barking, as I am sure it welcomes this debate.
Do not let us forget that the City of London has proved that it can be trusted and that it has fought. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has had the opportunity of going on one of the City's trips around the forest.

Mr. Newens: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: Then he knows as well as I do that the City of London has done an excellent job. If there is to be any transgression, I have no fear at all about the City of London. We know that it is promoting the Bill, but in fact it is doing so at the behest of the Department of Transport. It is the Department that we must watch. I shall be with my hon. Friend, on the barricades if need be, fighting whatever Minister may be in office. If we win the next election, as everyone says we shall, it will be a Minister of my own party against whom I shall be


fighting. If that prognostication is wrong, and a Minister of a different party is in office, I shall still be there.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Barking and Harlow for giving us the chance of debating the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friends' desire and objective that there will be no further transgression is supported, and if they need help and support I shall be with them.

9.4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who made an interesting and wide-ranging speech, that one of the merits of proceeding in the way that we are tonight is that if at any future stage—God forbid—there were any further transgression on Epping Forest, such a parliamentary procedure would have to be gone through again, and my hon. Friends would again have an opportunity of making their speeches.
I see a broad beam across the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. I am anticipating what he may say on a future occasion. But at least the safeguards are there, which is an important factor in this situation.
I am also glad that through the efforts of my hon. Friends, as well as Conservative Members, we have had a constructive debate. I am glad of the opportunity to debate the M25 London orbital route, and also the particular problems of this part of the orbital route.
The hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who introduced the Bill most ably, explained why the City is involved. It may be helpful if I explain why the Government are committed to building the M25, and why and to what extent land in the forest is affected. I hope that I shall also be able to explain how we view the considerable concern of my hon. Friends, as well as the strong views of those in the affected area, about what must be regarded as part of our national heritage—Epping Forest—which is a beautiful stretch of countryside and, clearly, a most important local amenity.
To begin with the basic situation on the M25, I should like to repeat points that I have already made to the House in

previous debates on the reasons for this particular project.
As I explained in the Adjournment debate on 2 November, broadly this road serves three main functions: first, it will provide a way round Greater London for through traffic, particularly traffic to and from the East Coast, the Channel ports and the Tilbury docks. It will also link Heathrow and Gatwick and provide a route from those airports to the M1 and the M4.
Secondly, it will act as a general distributor, linking the radial routes that carry traffic in and out of London. Drivers will be able to reach places in London or find the most convenient access road without crossing the centre or using existing inadequate orbital routes.
Thirdly, it will also bring substantial local relief to many congested roads on the outskirts of London.
In the course of this debate, as in other debates on the same subject, hon. Members have stressed the importance of the road and the relief it will bring to many of their constituents. The M25 has the highest priority in our road building programme. Although only 23 miles have been built out of a total length of 120 miles, a further 16 miles is under construction and planning is well advanced on a further 45 miles. Only about a quarter of the route remains to be settled. I expect that all except the north-west sector will be finished by the end of 1983, and the whole road will be completed in 1985.
The north-east quadrant of the motorway, which includes the section through Epping Forest, will play a significant role in taking traffic from the M1 and the A1 to Tilbury and the Channel ports. It should also benefit more local traffic moving around this north-east sector of London. Without this section, increasing volumes of heavy traffic would continue to use routes through London and its suburbs or, alternatively, through rural Essex and Hertfordshire, using totally unsuitable roads and causing increasing delays for both through and local traffic. That would be undesirable environmentally and would also lead to increased danger to pedestrians and motorists alike.
The transfer of this obstructive traffic to this purpose-built road will lead to substantial environmental benefits in the


London suburbs and also—and this has been much commented upon, most noticeably by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) recently—in the towns and villages of Essex and Hertfordshire. The proposed route for the north-eastern sector from the A10 and Bulls Cross to the A12 near Brentwood was published in 1973. Over 1,500 objections were received and a public inquiry was held at Epping between December 1974 and July 1975. The inquiry lasted for 89 days. At the time it was the longest inquiry ever held. I do not think that it can reasonably be claimed that the inspector failed to give objectors a chance to put their views forward.
The inspector reported in May 1976. He took into account the Department's forecast of the number of vehicles likely to use the road, the environmental effects and the effects on agriculture, green belt land and the forest. He declared himself satisfied that the road was needed and that the environmental disbenefits it would bring would be more than offset by the environmental benefits enjoyed by the wider community. The report is no less than 922 pages long. I recognise that the length of the inquiry or the bulk of the report is not by itself conclusive evidence that nothing was overlooked. However, I hope that hon. Members will accept that in this instance there are reliable indicators of the careful and thorough way in which all the relevant factors were considered by the inspector. In the end the inspector recommended that the line orders should be made as drafted, subject to some alterations.
After further careful consideration by the Departments of Transport and Environment the decision of my right hon. Friends was given in a letter dated 28 September 1977 and the orders were made on 1 March 1978. Since then we have been going ahead with the remaining statutory procedures. A public inquiry into the draft compulsory purchase orders for the section to the west of the forest from the River Lea to the A121 will open on 20 March, and the inquiry into the draft orders from the A121 to the M11 will probably open in May or June. The last section cannot be built unless we are able to use the land that is the subject of part II. My right hon. Friends

will not make any decisions on the order until Parliament has completed its consideration of the Bill.
I turn to the effects on the forest. As the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South said, the conservators' main aim, which I share, has been to minimise the impact on the forest. The most direct route, and hence the cheapest and most convenient for motorists, would take the road through a broad part of the forest. A route further to the north than the current scheme, avoiding the forest altogether, would have been longer and would have taken more land, property and houses. The route that was proposed by the Department and approved by the inspector is thus a compromise. It passes through the northern tip of the forest. It touches forest land at four points, and with the exception of Bell Common these are all roadside verges.
At the two principal crossings the motorway will be carried on bridges over the verges so that riders and walkers will be able virtually to follow their present paths. At Bell Common the road passes through about 500 yards of the forest. The Department had originally proposed that the road should be constructed in a cut-and-cover tunnel for about half that length to preserve the continuity of forest land. However, the inspector supported the proposal put forward by the conservators that the whole length should be in a tunnel at an extra cost of about £2½ million at 1974 prices. The Secretary of State accepted that recommendation.
After construction of the road the land will be returned to its current use. The current use is the cricket pitch. Clause 7 will lay on the Department responsibility to provide the cricket club with facilities
 not less advantageous to the members…than the cricket ground, pavilion and conveniences now available to them ".
That is a fairly strong commitment. I do not know how lavish the provision will be but I think that the words I have quoted are suitable.
The overall extent of the forest is about 6,000 acres. The Bill will enable the City to transfer to the Department 14½ acres of that 6,000 acres. Once the road has been built, 11½ acres of the 14½ acres will be open to the public, Moreover, my Department intends to buy 14½ acres to


give to the City in exchange for what is transferred, so the size of the forest will not be changed. Indeed, the area open to the public will be increased. I would like to refer to the question of delay, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens). He made the point that it may be right to delay things in the wider interests of ensuring that one finds the best possible solution to this conflict between the need for a road which would be environmentally beneficial but also the environmental need to protect the forest and this special part of London. I would like to put some points to him.
Any broad alternative, most recently the River Lea proposal put forward by a number of individuals, would probably take at least a year to consider in depth. There would, therefore, be a delay of at least a year in any solution. If we were to embark on an alernative, this whole project would be set back at least a decade. It would take that long to work out any alternative to what is now proposed to the point where it was feasible to build the road.
I would like my hon. Friend to consider the problems of simply delaying this part of the road. As a number of speakers have pointed out, other sections of the road are proceeding. Indeed, other sections of the M25 have been completed. If this section was not built, there would be a gap in the orbital road and traffic would flow from the sections that were built into this gap. The situation in that area would not merely be as bad as it is today. It could well be considerably worse.
Apart from the speeches made in this debate by the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar and for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who declared clearly what he felt was the balance of the argument, I have also had representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) and for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), who cannot participate in this debate—although they would have liked to do so—because they are members of the Government. They have been concerned about the possibility of delay in this section of the road because of the reasons—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is not true that the hon. Members whom the Minister has mentioned cannot participate in the debate. They choose not to do so. They could if they wanted. There is nothing to stop them. Any member of the Government can speak.

Mr. Horam: I defer to my hon. Friend, given the length of time that he has been an hon. Member of this House, on the question of the traditions of the House. He may well be right. I thought it was worth making that point simply to indicate the real problems which even a short delay in this section of the road could cause in other parts of London.

Mr. Newens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that, recognising, as I hope I made clear in my speech, the need for lateral road communications in this area, it is still vital that those roads are not constructed in a manner which destroys or seriously damages the environment? I am grateful that he mentioned certain areas. The areas at Copthall Green and Upshire have to be looked at again. Does my hon. Friend agree that, even in the time available, we have to go over these matters carefully together with the representations of hon. Members who have spoken in favour of proceeding with the road?

Mr. Horam: I take my hon. Friend's point that there should be proper consideration of the environmental points, including those that he and other hon. Members have made during this prolonged debate. In so far as the statutory procedures allow, certainly the Committee stage will be a proper place to consider those points.
I also say to my hon. Friend that as a matter of general policy he will know that, certainly since my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Transport and I have been in charge of affairs at the Department of Transport—nothwithstanding the comments of my hon. Friend, whose memory goes back much further than that—we have tried more comprehensively to take into account the environmental problems of road building. I have tried to show—I think that my hon. Friend has given me credit for it—what we have tried to do


in this particular case to meet the very clear problems which we recognise.
Finally, therefore, the Government really cannot say too much about the importance of the M25. If the road is to avoid the built-up areas of London there is no alternative but to cross the surrounding countryside, including this small stretch of Epping Forest. I regret that as much as other hon. Members. We have gone to great lengths to protect the amenities of the forest, but it is not simply a question of weighing the environmental loss against wider benefits. Failure to complete this road would leave unsolved acute problems of congestion, noise, pollution and danger which would far outweigh its adverse effects. That is why I feel that the majority—indeed, almost everyone—who have spoken in this debate have come down, certainly on balance, on the side of this project.
I quite understand why the City Corporation feels that it is necessary to obtain parliamentary authority to enable this road to run through the forest. Indeed, it provides the sort of guarantees to which some of my hon. Friends have referred, and I am grateful to the Corporation for bringing forward this part of the Bill.
I must make clear that the orbital route is urgently needed, and the Government therefore regard it as vital that the Bill should proceed. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and for Barking (Miss Richardson), in particular, will recognise that we have tried our hardest to minimise that clear environmental effects which the project will impose, that we have tried to take full account of the feelings and the arguments of those who have opposed this particular scheme at various stages, and that, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee), while we, as Ministers, have come to the conclusion that we have, we have also come to it very reluctantly, in view of the conflicts between transport considerations and environmental considerations which are posed very acutely in this sort of area.
I hope that my hon. Friends will recognise that we, too, welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter as fully, frankly and openly as possible, but in the light of the general balance of the argument we should give the Bill a Second Reading so that it can proceed to the Committee stage, where sensible

discussion of details can go forward, but, at the end of the day, there should be no delay in this project.

Mr. Wells: I am disappointed that the Minister said nothing about the great advantages of the clearway that will come outside Billingsgate market when the inevitable market congestion is removed. He is, after all, a Minister of Transport. We did not expect him to say anything about the details of the market, but there are many transport implications in other clauses. The hon. Gentleman said nothing about the furious driving referred to in clause 21.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) on the way in which he introduced it.
Many people will regret the passing of Billingsgate. It is part of the City, as Smithfield still is, and it brings a piquant flavour to that part of the world as one drives through, although, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) made clear, there is a certain amount of road congestion. The removal of Billingsgate will leave Fishmongers' Hall, that magnificent building, isolated from its original purpose but I am sure that it will be possible to make journeys from the new Billingsgate to the old Fishmongers' Hall. The move is clearly demonstrated as necessary for a variety of reasons.
As everybody in the debate has said, Epping Forest is a unique place for those who were brought up in that part of the world, for those who drive through it and for those who read about it. If there is any threat of filching pieces of Epping Forest, it is right that the decision should be taken in this House and only after full examination and debate. It is also clear that there is a general feeling that the M25 is a top priority road, certainly for London. The Bill makes it clear that there will be no loss of land to Epping Forest.
There are worries on both sides of the House about some aspect of the road. Hon. Members ask whether it is really necessary for the road to go through Epping Forest. Such worries will be examined in Committee. It would be quite


wrong, as most Members have said, if the House were not to give the Bill a Second Reading and allow that examination to take place in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked specifically about the M25. I see no reason why the next Government should change the decision to treat the M25 as a top priority road. The report of the inspector is a valuable one, and the fact that the Government have accepted his view that much more of the road should be built in tunnel was one of the points which the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) rightly welcomed in a speech showing concern for what has happened.
I make brief reference to clause 21. It is a most interesting clause which seems strangely out of place in this Bill. The provision was last changed in 1967. Then it was possible to drive furiously through the City of London committing various offences in thoroughfares, including the discharging of firearms. The maximum penalty for that until 1967 was a fine of £2. In 1967 it became £20 and, presumably on the advice of the Commissioner of the City of London Police, it is now proposed to increase it to £50.
One would have thought that that was a very small charge to pay for discharging firearms or driving furiously. Perhaps if one drove furiously and discharged firearms there might still be a fine of only £50. However, I am sure that there is a good reason for its being in the Bill although my hon. Friend did not tell us about it when he introduced the measure.
The Minister was clear, as he always is when explaining road problems. He showed the environmental advantages, on balance, of allowing the Bill to proceed and of allowing the exchange of land so that the road can be built and go into cut-and-cover for the longest possible distance. I was sorry that he did not tell us more—as he was asked to do from both sides of the House—about the deer tracks, which seem to follow on from the elephant trails about which my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South spoke. We shall have to assume that the deer will be able to cross the tunnel when it is filled in.
This has been a useful debate. Well-deserved tributes have been paid from all sides to the City Corporation for its enlightened stewardship of Epping Forest. Most of us would praise the Corporation for its enlightened stewardship of all that goes on within the square mile.
I hope that the Bill will emerge from Committee swiftly. I trust that the Committee will examine the issues which cause genuine concern to Members on both sides of the House. I hope, too, that the Bill will complete all its stages and allow the road to be built to provide a vital link for all who work and live in London.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for being allowed, by the leave of the House, to reply to the debate. Those who wish to revise the procedures of the House sometimes question whether Private Bills have a proper place in our procedures. Today's debate wholly vindicates the principle of having such Bills debated in this way. I join other hon. Members in thanking the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and his hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) for objecting in such a way that we could have the debate, which has been useful and valuable.
I thank all my hon. Friends for supporting the Bill, and all hon. Members for their contributions to an excellent debate. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) said that this was a London occasion. It was kind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) to come in at the end of the debate to listen to the closing speeches.
The centrepiece of the debate has been Epping Forest and the City's trusteeship of it. I hope that I used factual rather than evaluative language in talking of the past century. It has been warming to hear the tributes paid to the City for its stewardship of the forest in the last 100 years. I refer in particular to the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) in an intervention and in his speech. Tributes have been paid in which I take incidental personal pride on behalf of the City. Like Lysias, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and I were


nursed on the self-same hill—in Hampstead. Therefore, from the background of Hampstead Heath I can judge the way in which Epping Forest is administered. I do so with admiration.
The hon. Member for Barking spoke about the problem of giving away land. I am not sure that it is fully recognised that the Department of Transport is to have 14 acres available to Epping Forest, which will have an incidental virtue. It is land which will probably come in one piece instead of in four different packets, which will be less of a cumulative loss.
As I prepared for the debate, I was reminded of Lord Slim's remark that the British Army is always fated to fight its battles at the junctions of two or more maps. Similar complications arose in this case.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) spoke of having tramped the route in order to see what had happened. Perhaps I am a more urban animal. I believe that one should see a city on one's feet but my inspection of the route was by car. By that one could see that except for Bell Common the three other areas of the forest were strips of land which lined outlying parts of the forest, rather than total incursions into the forest.
The hon. Member for Harlow made a powerful speech, with which many hon. Members will agree, on the necessity for vigilance to prevent the erosion of the richness of our heritage. Such defences are important.
Returning to the deer, he was concerned that they were using the land on the edge of the forest. That is so. In the 1966 census 61 deer were found in the area to the north and only four to seven were seen by the verderers during that day in the forest. The critical factor is whether they can cross over to use the forest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) lent admirable support about the M25 on behalf of their constituents. There has been a thorough-going

debate on the effect of the M25 by hon. Members who know the area well.
There were other references to Billingsgate market. I am grateful for the welcome given by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) not only to the City's stewardship of the market but to its action. The hon. Member for Ilford, South, who spoke with lyricism on Epping Forest, also welcomed the developments at Billingsgate.
There is obviously a problem over charges at the Museum of London. As the hon. Member for Harlow said, the museum has done an outstanding job and has won a major European prize. There is a mild problem of response through the Bill. The promoters of the Bill are not exactly the same as the governors of the museum, and consultation is needed with the governors to respond to the criticisms. In Committee we should be able to find accommodation and a compromise solution to remove the misgivings expressed by the hon. Member for Harlow.
Finally, I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State and to the Department of Transport for the manner in which the arrangements have been carried out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead said, the Minister's comments at the end of the debate were lucid.
In closing, I return to the cricket ground reference and the phrase quoted by the Under-Secretary of State, that the arrangements when Bell Common is returned to the cricketers are to be no less advantageous to members than the cricket ground pavilion and conveniences now available. I saw the ground earlier in the year when there was snow on the wicket. Painted on the pavilion was the phrase "George Davis rules, OK". I hope that the damage done to Bell Common in building the tunnel will be less than the damage to the Headingley wicket in the name of George Davis. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this most worthwhile debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confer power on the Independent Broadcasting Authority to equip themselves to transmit a television broadcasting service additional to those of the British Broadcasting Corporation and to that provided by the Authority under the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of advances to the Authority for the purpose of enabling the Authority to equip themselves to transmit any such additional service; and
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums required to be so paid by virtue of that Act;

but the aggregate amount outstanding by way of the principal in respect of any such advances shall not at any time exceed £18 million.—[Mr. Graham.]

Orders of the Day — LAND REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second reading read.

Ordered,

That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Graham.]

Orders of the Day — NEW HEBRIDES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]

9.39 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I do not intend to delay the House for long. I am anxious to pursue an interest that developed while I was occupying a similar position to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, when I had the opportunity to visit the islands of the New Hebrides in the Pacific. The House will be aware that the New Hebrides is a condominium under the control of France and Britain. I carried out this visit with a French Minister. Certain assurances were given in good faith by myself on behalf of the British Government and by the French about the road to independence that would be followed by the people of the New Hebrides.
Looking at history before and since then, it would be true to say that no colonial people seeking independence from a governing Power have had more difficulty than the people of the New Hebrides. I have already mentioned the essence of their difficulties. They are unique in the annals of decolonisation. The New Hebrides condominium is administered by two countries—Britain and France.
The contemporary history of the New Hebrides is not very happy and feelings of suspicion and mistrust among the people are profound. That is why I am raising the matter tonight. I hope and believe that my hon. Friend will give me the assurances that I seek.
I do not believe that it is too late for the British Government to retrieve the situation and to move peaceably towards independence for the New Hebrides. Undoubtedly, mistakes have been made on both sides but much of the misunderstanding that has arisen has had as its genesis the marked failure of the British and French Governments fully to appreciate the importance which the people of the New Hebrides attach to their land. The whole question of land is the basis of their society. The Pacific peoples regard land as fundamentally bound up with their existence. They regard the Western concept of land as a commodity as wrong and completely immoral.
The British have been in the Pacific for more than a century and history shows that we have consistently failed to grasp this situation. The whole Banaban question and the relationship with the Ocean Islands demonstrates this misunderstanding about land. It was Britain's insensitivity to the deeply held principles on land and the attitudes and opinions which flow from that concept which originally provoked the lack of confidence in British and French intentions on independence. For example, the Independence Party, or VP—I met its representatives in 1965—achieved a majority of votes cast in the condominium's first election. Such was the lack of confidence in future independence and doubt that it would ever take place that that party's representatives refused to take their seats, declared a system of UDI and set up a provisional Government.
Last June, following the appointment of a one-time policeman, Mr. George Kalsakau, as Chief Minister, the VP, as


the majority party, participated in the electoral reform conference. Under Mr. Kalsakau's chairmanship, agreement was reached for a timetable for independence, the timetable needs to be spelt out and reasserted.
The VP abandoned its UDI at that time as an act of faith and was prepared to follow the road to independence. However, the Assembly rejected that, despite the promises that were made. That decision was upheld by the British and French Governments. I am not sure of the reasons for that, and I hope that the Minister will elaborate upon them. That decision has sown the seeds of distrust and suspicion among the people of the New Hebrides.
At the time that I visited the islands, the people believed that they would be moving rapidly towards independence. I had no idea then that in 1979 I would still be asking what had happened to the commitments that I was authorised to give.
Following more talks, a Government of national unity has been formed. The Independence Party, the VP, is participating in that Government. Assuming that events have been misinterpreted, the British Government should show that they will not allow the vested interests of various people and bodies in the condominium to frustrate the move to independence. Many in the New Hebrides fear that that will take place. The Government should give every assistance to the pre-independence Government to regain land for the people, much of which was obtained by devious methods. Britain should do all that it can to impress its will with regard to independence and the acquisition of land from the French.
The British Government should provide a timetable and a date for independence for the New Hebrides. The people are not undecided about independence—the decision has been made. If the belief in the integrity of the British Government is to be retrieved, we must act as I have suggested to ensure that the islands move rapidly towards independence.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) for allowing me a moment or two in the debate. It is to be welcomed that,

after many years of dithering and delay, there is general agreement between the British and French Governments to move rapidly towards independence for the New Hebrides. I regret that, although this will be the last British dependency in the Pacific, the French intend to retain New Caledonia and French Polynesia as autonomous or dependent territories in one form or another and that therefore the whole of the Pacific will not become independent when the New Hebrides gains independence.
I should like to add my tributes to the efforts of the Vanuaaku Party. It has struggled over many years to make possible independence and its efforts mean that independence will be gained some years before it would otherwise have been possible.
I should like to make a few points about independence that I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify.
All the newly independent countries in the Pacific—the Gilbert Islands, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands—have real economic problems and I hope that the economic arrangements made for the independence of the New Hebrides will enable it to become genuinely economically independent and not so dependent upon the French companies operating in New Caledonia that political independence is not a reality.
I also hope that it has been agreed that the franchise can start at the age of 18 and that all those aged over 18 will be able to vote. That has been strongly urged by the Vanuaaku Party. It is the position in the United Kingdom and it would be hypocritcal to deny the franchise at 18 to those in the New Hebrides.
I hope that after independence the New Hebrides will become a force for unity in the Pacific. The tragedy of Africa, the Pacific, the Caribbean and many other ex-colonial areas of the world is that they are divided on a linguistic basis, which often turns out to be a political basis as well, and the people cannot communicate with each other. There is, unhappily, a deep linguistic division between the various parties in the New Hebrides. There are more bilingual people—speaking English and French—in this group of islands, as a result of the bizarre nineteenth century political arrangements, than there are anywhere else in the Pacific. I


hope that in terms of educational institutions and other arrangements, that situation will not be a disadvantage but will be used to serve the whole Pacific so that the New Hebrides can be a centre in which the French-speaking and English-speaking people of the area can meet and create greater unity.

9.52 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) for initiating the debate, since the House seldom has the opportunity to hear of the affairs of this small and dependent territory which enjoys unique condominium status and which is shortly to take its rightful place in the world as an independent State. It is sad that we do not spend time, even at this hour, discussing such issues. Special thanks are due to my hon. Friends the Members for Eton and Slough and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price).
An extra tribute should be paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough for the important contribution that she made towards the achievement of self-determination while she exercised ministerial responsibility for the territory. The events that she set in train in November 1974 in meetings with the French enabled our Government and the Government of France to announce in July 1977 a joint programme designed to bring the New Hebrides to independence in 1980. My hon. Friend is right to guard that commitment jealously, and I am sure that I shall be able to confirm it to her.
The programme called for elections to a representative Assembly during 1977 and the unification of the separate British and French administrations in the territory. My hon. Friend's concern has been that since then there have been problems that may be obstacles to the achievement of the commitments.
Despite steady progress towards the rationalisation and unification of services, constitutional advancement was hampered throughout 1977 and most of 1978 by seemingly irreconcilable differences between the two principal political groupings in the territory. Differences of language, culture and religion created by the condominium system have polarised

society between anglophones, who are mainly Presbyterian and Anglian, and francophones, who are mainly Roman Catholic. That only goes to underline the problems that we have been grappling with these last two years, and which I am sure my hon. Friends appreciate. The anglophones tend to support the Vanuaaku Party, which won more than 50 per cent. of the popular vote in elections in 1975 and which even now claims majority support in the country. On the other side there are a number of mainly francophone parties.
The past two years have been characterised by efforts to bring about a reconciliation between the two opposing political groups. For a period after the elections in November 1977 the Vanuaaku Party declared a "People's Provisional Government", but the Anglo-French proposals, which were announced in Vila in August 1978, envisaged the establishment of a Government of National Unity in which the Vanuaaku Party and members of the other parties would be equally represented. The Government of National Unity would be responsible for the preparation of an independence constitution, which, after completion of a census and the preparation of electoral rolls, would be approved by referendum. Fresh elections for a fully representative Assembly would then be held, leading to independence, as planned, in 1980.
Negotiations between the political parties indicated a cautious welcome for the proposals. Doubts about the likely effectiveness of the Government of National Unity were expressed by the Vanuaaku Party, which feared that decisions of the new Government might be overthrown by the legally constituted but predominantly francophone representative Assembly. It was, however, reassured by a joint statement that we and the French would, if necessary, take legal steps to prevent the Assembly from frustrating the will of the new Government, and in November indicated its willingness in principle to participate in a Government of National Unity.
In December the representative Assembly cleared the way for further progress by dismissing the existing Government and appointing Father Gerard Leymang as Chief Minister charged with the task of forming the Government of


National Unity. On 21 December, the Chief Minister announced that agreement had been reached with the VP and that a Government of National Unity, composed of five members of the francophone parties of the moderates, as they have been called, and five members of the VP, would be formed. The president of the Vanuaaku Party, Father Walter Lini, was appointed as Deputy Chief Minister.
We therefore naturally welcome these latest developments, which clearly demonstrate the determination of the political parties to work together for the future good of the New Hebrides. This is all the more welcome because, as was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Eton and Slough and for Lewisham, West, of the legacy of deep differences of language and culture that have existed within the New Hebrides. We must help to consolidate the vital progress that the New Hebrideans have made. We must not allow ourselves to lose the ground that has now been won.
Much remains to be done, and we and the French Government are ready to assist in any way we can. British and French Ministers meet regularly to plan the way forward: only last month my right hon. Friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts had important and constructive discussions with his French opposite number, M. Dijoud, in London. Both our Governments are determined not to allow any obstacle to frustrate our joint objective of bringing the New Hebrides to independence in 1980.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is there a target date of 1980 which both Governments have?

Mr. Rowlands: I hesitate to state a date, or even a month. I have only just returned from independence celebrations in the Caribbean, in respect of which dates and months were quoted which this House, through no fault of its own, was unable to meet. If we state dates, months or even days, we create unnatural expectations and, therefore, disappointments.
The fact that the two Governments and the New Hebrideans are committed to the clear principle of independence in 1980 is a clear and unequivocal commitment. The fact of a day or month is less relevant than the fact that the principle and commitment have been made.
I should like to answer the points that my hon. Friends raised. The first concerns the question of franchise, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West. The present franchise age is 21 and the VP party has demanded that it should be reduced to 18, as has been stated. That is now generally agreed among New Hebrideans. In 1977 the two metropolitan Governments told the VP that they had no objection to 18 as the age of franchise but that it would not be possible to make the reduction in age for the elections of that year. The general principle and the general agreement among New Hebrideans is that 18 should be the age.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Mr. Rowlands: The Chief Minister announced in February that a committee is being set up to work out the land problem, to which my hon. Friends have referred. It is much appreciated that this is an issue of genuine concern for the New Hebrides. I believe that the spirit of conciliation that is now abroad within the New Hebrides is such that the issue can be resolved in the context of the political progress that we intend to make.
I emphasise to my hon. Friends, who rightly brought the issue to the attention of the House, that the Government and the French Government are determined not to allow any obstacle to frustrate our joint objective of bringing the New Hebrides to independence in 1980. British and French experts will be visiting Vila later this month to assist the Government's constitutional committee in the drafting of an independence constitution. Work on a census and on the preparation of electoral rolls, under the direction of British and French advisers, is well advanced. In due course the Government will present a Command Paper to the House, setting out the constitutional provisions agreed in the New Hebrides and the arrangements for putting them into effect.
Meanwhile, the process of unifying the hitherto separate Administrations continues. A New Hebrides public service has been established, and those functions


for which the British national service has been responsible will be transferred to the new Government on 1 April. I hope that my hon. Friends will appreciate that there has been tremendous progress and a significant breakthrough in terms of political will and in practical terms within the New Hebrides in the last four years. I claim no credit for myself. I claim it for my predecessor and also for my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts.
We shall continue to grant the New Hebrides a generous measure of aid. During 1979 and 1980, the New Hebrides

will receive up to £6·5 million in capital aid, assistance of the order of £2 million a year for education and social services, and technical assistance.
Britain and France are convinced that national unity is a prerequisite for independence. The New Hebrides political leaders are to be congratulated on their recent achievements, which are entirely compatible with a desire to bring the country to a united, viable and peaceful independence in the course of 1980.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Ten o'clock.